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.

Stuart Caundle Head of Paid Service

Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2018 Time: 8.30 am Venue: Council Chamber - Weymouth & Portland Borough Council

Members of Committee M Tewkesbury (Chairman), C James (Vice-Chairman), K Brookes, H Bruce, I Bruce, J Ellis, P Kimber, R Nickinson, J Orrell, 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. Please note that if you attend a committee meeting and make oral representations to the committee your name, together with a summary of your comments will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes, which are the formal record of the meeting, will be available to view in electronic and paper format, as a matter of public record, for a minimum of 6 years following the date of the meeting.

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

WP/18/00489/FUL – Land at Junction of Dorchester Road & Mercery Road, Weymouth, DT3 5FA 8.45am

WP/17/00846/OUT – Caravan Sales Concession Area, Goulds Garden Centre, Littlemoor Road, Weymouth 9.00am

WP/18/00397/FUL – 6 White Horse Drive, Weymouth, DT3 6BZ 9.15am

WP/18/00699/FUL – Site Q Osprey Quay, Hamm Beach Road, Portland 9.40am

WP/18/00479/FUL – Land South West of 31 Reap Lane, Portland 10.00am

WP/18/00607/OUT – Land between 68-78 Reap Lane, Portland 10.00am

WP/18/00424/FUL – Land West of Branscombe Close, Portland 10.00am

The estimated time of return to the Council Offices is 10.45am.

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 Robert Firth, 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 WP/18/00298/FUL & WP18/00299/LBC - BREWERS QUAY, HOPE 7 - 44 SQUARE, WEYMOUTH

Alterations & conversion of existing building to provide a museum; wet weather/ exhibition space & cultural space including a cookery school - A1/ B1 and D1 uses; 3 x Class A1/A3 units; 47x Class C3 residential units including the residential conversion of the Coopers Building and other associated works.

8 WP/17/00846/OUT - CARAVAN SALES CONCESSION AREA, 45 - 68 GOULDS GARDEN CENTRE, LITTLEMOOR ROAD, WEYMOUTH

Erect up to 24 flats

9 WP/18/00699/FUL - SITE Q OSPREY QUAY, HAMM BEACH ROAD, 69 - 92 PORTLAND

Erection of Class A1 retail store, car parking, landscaping, servicing, revised access and associated works.

10 WP/18/00489/FUL - LAND AT JUNCTION OF DORCHESTER ROAD 93 - 116 & MERCERY ROAD, WEYMOUTH DT3 5FA Erection of discount food store (use class A1) with customer car parking, soft & hard landscaping & associated works

11 WP/17/00866/OUT - SOUTHWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL, 117 - 140 SWEETHILL LANE, PORTLAND DT5 2DT

The demolition of existing buildings and the construction of up to 58 new residential properties, with associated access roads, parking and green space.

12 WP/18/00744/FUL - WEYMOUTH SEAFRONT, THE ESPLANADE, 141 - 154 WEYMOUTH

Installation of artistic lighting to 31 no. existing lighting columns.

13 WP/18/00397/FUL - 6 WHITE HORSE DRIVE, WEYMOUTH, DT3 155 - 166 6BZ

Erection of 3no. detached houses.

14 WP/18/00479 - LAND SOUTH WEST OF 31 REAP LANE, 167 - 176 PORTLAND

Erection of 4no. dwellings.

15 WP/18/00607/OUT - LAND BETWEEN 68-78 REAP LANE, 177 - 184 PORTLAND

Erection of 3No. dwellings with associative parking.

16 WP/18/00424/FUL - LAND WEST OF BRANSCOMBE CLOSE, 185 - 192 PORTLAND

Erection of 2no. dwellings

17 WP/18/00586/FUL - WEYMOUTH QUAYSIDE, HARBOUR WALL 193 - 204

Strengthening of 76 metres of sheet steel pile wall by a line of new sheet steel piles driven into the harbour bed immediately in front of the old wall. Replacement of the four flights of existing ferry steps by two new flights of steps supported on the new piles. Demolition of the brick and concrete kiosk building at the top of the ferry steps.

18 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.

19 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 NUMBER: WP/18/00298/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: Brewers Quay, Hope Square, Weymouth, DT4 8TR

PROPOSAL: Alterations & conversion of existing building to provide a museum; wet weather/ exhibition space & cultural space including a cookery school - A1/ B1 and D1 uses; 3 x Class A1/A3 units; 47x Class C3 residential units including the residential conversion of the Coopers Building and other associated works.

APPLICANT: Versant (Brewers Quay) Ltd

CASE OFFICER: Ann Collins

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr A Reed, Cllr J Orrell

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions.

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00299/LBC

APPLICATION SITE: BREWERS QUAY, HOPE SQUARE, WEYMOUTH, DT4 8TR

PROPOSAL: Alterations & conversion of existing building to provide a museum; wet weather/ exhibition space & cultural space including a cookery school - A1/ B1 and D1 uses; 3 x Class A1/A3 units; 47x Class C3 residential units including the residential conversion of the Coopers Building and other associated works.

APPLICANT: Versant (Brewers Quay) Ltd

CASE OFFICER: Ann Collins

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr A Reed, Cllr J Orrell

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve subject to conditions.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The buildings involved in the proposed conversion are grade II listed and comprise a range of large structures built in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s

Page 7 for two breweries. It includes a main brew house distillery, two warehouses and “Excise House” public house among other associated stores and buildings. The Coopers building to the rear of the site is an L- shaped single storey former workshop. It is earlier in date, marked 1869 and is separately grade II listed with its front boundary and signage above the entrance gate. The tight network of associated buildings occupies a large plot enclosed by Hope Square to the front, Newberry Gardens to the west and Spring Road to the east. This is a historic quarter of Weymouth, just south of Weymouth Harbour and within the defined development boundary and Conservation Area. A number of other listed buildings in commercial and residential use surround the site to the north, east and south. To the east is the grade II* listed Malthouse no. 4 (now 1 to 10 Groves Malthouse).

1.2 Following the closure of the brewery, the building subsequently became a complex containing the “Timewalk”, town museum, shops, workshops, bars, offices and restaurants following approvals in 1989. The uses have ceased, apart from the Town Museum and some offices, and the vast majority of the building has now been empty for some time and is in a deteriorating condition.

1.3 The site is within the area covered by adopted local plan policy WEY4 Custom House Quay and Brewery Waterfront.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 The applications as originally submitted were for “alterations and conversion of existing building to provide a museum; wet weather/exhibition space and cultural experience space; 3 Class A1/A3 units; 47 Class C3 residential units including the residential conversion of the Coopers Buildings and other associated works.”

2.2 There was some ambiguity over exactly what might be proposed for the cultural space and the applicant also advised us that there was potential interest in one of the spaces being used as a cookery school. As such the description of development was amended in September to read: “Alterations & conversion of existing building to provide a museum; wet weather/ exhibition space & cultural space including a cookery school - A1/ B1 and D1 uses; 3 x Class A1/A3 units; 47x Class C3 residential units including the residential conversion of the Coopers Building and other associated works.” Resulting from this there was a further consultation period on the application reflecting the amended description and the amended plans that had been received at that time.

2.3 In 2010 a planning application was submitted for “Redevelopment to provide an 85 bed hotel, A1/A3/A4 uses, 8 residential apartments, 5 tied

Page 8 holiday apartments, a museum, wet weather attraction and associated works.” The planning committee in 2011 resolved to grant planning permission subject to the applicant’s entering into a S106 agreement involving the future of the museum and resident’s parking spaces. The applicants and LPA tried to negotiate on the S106 agreement but after a year the applicant concluded that the scheme was not viable and it stalled with the S106 agreement never being completed.

2.4 In 2016 planning permission and listed building consent were granted for “Alterations and conversion of existing building to provide a museum; wet weather/exhibition space and cultural experience space; 4 class A1/A3 units; 35 Class C3 residential units and associated works.” The proposals at Brewers Quay were linked to proposals for the residential redevelopment of the Newtons Road Car Park (now known as Brewery Reach). This was to improve the viability of the Brewers Quay scheme and as such outline planning permission was also granted in 2016 for the erection of 18 dwellings on the Newtons Road Car Park.

2.5 There was a S106 agreement associated with the 2016 permissions which included the following:

- Compliance with a Museum Development Agreement - To provide free of charge 27 off street car parking spaces within the Newberry Garden Car Park for the use of the Council for 25 years. - Phasing and occupation of the development and the dwellings on Newtons Road Car Park and in Brewers Quay. - To retain public access for car parking to Newtons Road Car Park site until such time that the planning permission is implemented; and - To submit a revised viability appraisal with the reserved matters application for the Newtons Road Car Park.

2.6 Since then a reserved matters application has been approved for the Newtons Road Car Park site (WP/16/00852/RES) and a subsequent revised reserved matters application relating to appearance only has been approved (WP/18/00049/RES). The planning statement submitted with the current application states that work commenced on the Brewery Reach site in August 2017. In September 2018 all that appeared to have happened on site is the construction of some foundations for the townhouses.

2.7 Earlier this year the museum opened in a temporary space within Brewers Quay following a grant of listed building consent in June 2017 for internal alterations to accommodate the museum. The remainder of the museum collection is still in storage within the building.

Page 9 2.8 Permission was also granted in December 2017 to use part of the ground floor as a marketing suite.

2.9 In respect of the current application the planning statement says that “following a review of the 2016 permission it was considered that improvements could be made to the approved scheme. This included ensuring areas containing historic brewery equipment were made available for public access and ensuring the opportunities to extend at roof level were fully explored. There was also a desire to rationalise space within the brewery building and to optimise the number of residential units that could be delivered within the site”. The applicant engaged in pre- application discussions with officers and the outcome was positive in respect of the impact on the listed building and conservation area with the exception of concerns regarding the proposed loss of 2 vats to the side of the main brewery hall.

2.10 The 2016 permission was for a total of 35 residential units. The current scheme is for 47 as a result of an additional 9 units in the brewery building and the conversion of the Coopers building to 3 units (previously it was to be cultural space).

2.11 The museum would have accommodation over a number of floors with the main change being the inclusion of the original vertical conveyor and mash tunn on the first floor within the museum space whereas previously it was to be within a residential unit. This would enable an historic part of the brewery operations to be displayed within the museum. The total floorspace allocated to the museum has increased to 1252 sq m compared to 1107 sq m in the 2016 permission.

2.12 In the 2016 permission an area of the ground floor was shown as wet weather/exhibition space. The same area on the ground floor is proposed for that use in the current application.

2.13 In the 2016 permission there was to be 429 sq m of cultural space. The current application proposes 322 sq m which is 107 sq m less. The 2016 permission does not define what the cultural space could be used for but the current application states A1 (retail)/B1 (offices and light industrial)/D1 (non-residential institutions) or cookery school.

2.14 In the 2016 permission there were to be 4 A1/A3 units fronting onto Hope Square. The current scheme shows in this area a cultural space (although that could be used for A1) and then 3 A1/A3 units with what would have been units 3 and 4 amalgamated to form one larger potentially flagship unit.

Page 10 2.15 In respect of car parking it is proposed that there would be 38 spaces within the Newberry Gardens Car Park for the residents of Brewers Quay along with the 8 parking spaces along the western side of the Brewers Quay building. There would be a total of 46 spaces for the residents of the proposed 47 units. There would be no dedicated parking for the non- residential/commercial uses within the buildings, which is as per the current situation. Cycle storage is proposed at ground and first floor level (accessed from street level from the west) close to the proposed Mew Houses and flats 37 – 40. A total of 45 cycle parking spaces are proposed along with cycle hoops in Hope Square.

2.16 In terms of the conversion of the Coopers building this would be to 2 x 2 bed apartments and 1 x 3 bed apartments. There would be very little in the way of external alterations to the Coopers Building with the vast majority of openings retained in the building as they are now. There would be no extension or addition to the building. The existing boundary walling and gate are all proposed to be retained. The conservation officer did have a number of concerns about the proposed conversion but amended plans have been submitted.

2.17 In terms of Brewers Quay the main changes in respect of the north elevation (facing Hope Square) compared to the 2016 permission is the addition of a further floor above the main entrance, 3 blocks of zinc clad flat roof dormers and a section of new glazing within the roof plane.

2.18 In respect of the east elevation the main difference to the 2016 permission is the extra height to the lift shaft in order for the lift to serve the fifth floor. In addition the rainscreen composite cladding has been changed to zinc cladding panels.

2.19 In respect of the south elevation the lift and lobby enclosure is proposed to be extended upwards by an additional floor compared to the 2016 scheme. The western element of the mews is extended upwards with another floor. There would be a new link extension at third floor level visible from the south and the increase in the height of the lift shaft would be visible.

2.20 In respect of the west elevation the increased height of the lift shafts and lobby enclosure would be seen but most significantly the height of the mews is increased by an additional storey which is then timber clad at the upper level. The west elevation in the 2016 scheme was to have areas of timber look alike aluminium panel system cladding but it is now proposed that these areas would be timber clad.

2.21 There are a number of different internal alterations proposed compared to the 2016 scheme, reflecting the different way in which the building is

Page 11 proposed to be converted and altered. These include the removal of two of the vats and the provision of a new link at second floor level between the two sets of mews/flats.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

Application No. Application Description Decision Date of Decision 4/87/0127/P Renovation, conversion and A 11/88 extension of brewery buildings. Pedestrianisation of highways and associated parking. 4/87/0129/P Demolition, renovation and A 11/88 conversion of buildings to residential use, and construction of housing development Public House with functions rooms and residential uses above 4/89/558R & Alterations to existing A 8/89 4/89/559L buildings to change use to museum, retail, workshops, bars and restaurants and garden centre, retention of existing office use. Provision of car parking. 92/00052/COU Conversion of part of 1 st floor A 3/92 specialist retail area into hands on science exploratory-discovery leisure use (Class D2) 93/00026/FUL & Construct glazed roof over A 3/93 93/00027/LBC rear courtyard and access stairway 93/00142/COU & Convert ground floor of A 5/93 93/00143/LBC offices into a 6 lane bowling alley 96/00019/LBC Alterations to form office on A 3/96 second floor 96/00032/LBC Internal alterations to form A 2/96 microbrewery 99/00453/LBC & Internal alterations and A 12/99 99/00587/LBC alterations to form new museum entrance 10/00801/FULMAJ Redevelopment to provide an Applications not

Page 12 & 10/0831/LBC 85 bed hotel, A1/A3/A4 uses, determined. Proposals 8 residential apartments, 5 considered by committee tied holiday apartments, a in Jan 2011, Members museum, wet weather resolved to give delegated attraction and associated authority for the issue of a works conditional approval following the completion of a S106 agreement. The latter was never achieved. WP/14/01064/FUL Alterations and conversion of A 15/11/16 & existing building to provide a WP/14/01065/LBC museum; wet weather/exhibition space and cultural experience space; 4 class A1/A3 units; 35 Class C3 residential units and associated works WP/14/01062/OUT Erection of 18 Class C3 A 15/11/16 residential units, car parking and associated works WP/17/00435/LBC Internal alterations to A 6/17 accommodate the relocation of the museum WP/17/00761/COU Change of use of part of the A 12/17 & ground floor to a marketing WP/17/00762/LBC suite (Class A2)

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES :

4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (Revised 2018)

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

2. Achieving Sustainable Development 5. Delivering a Sufficient Supply of Homes 7. Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres 11. Making Effective Use of Land 12. Achieving Well-designed Places 14. Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change 16. Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment

4.1.2 Decision taking:

Page 13 Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

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

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

INT1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ENV4 Heritage Assets ENV5 Flood Risk ENV10 The Landscape and Townscape Setting ENV12 The Design and Positioning of Buildings ENV15 Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land ENV16 Amenity SUS2 Distribution of Development ECON4 Retail and Town Centre Development ECON5 Tourism Attractions and Facilities HOUS1 Affordable Housing HOUS4 Development of Flats, Hostels and Houses in Multiple Occupation COM1 Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision for Community Infrastructure COM6 The Provision of Education and Training Facilities COM7 Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM9 Parking Standards in New Development WEY4 Custom House Quay and Brewery Waterfront

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS :

5.1 Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas (2002)

5.2 Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2012):

“The Harbour area has come through the closure of the “Devenish” Brewery in 1984...”

“The southern Harbour frontage and Hope Square have a remarkably unspoilt townscape… a particularly interesting and attractive collection of former brewery buildings…”

Building Uses – Harbour South & Hope Sq

Page 14

“Uses were traditionally varied… a major brewery complex… Some of these functions – maritime and brewing – have disappeared, to be replaced by leisure boating facilities, restaurants, a wider range of shops and offices and tourism-related uses. There is considerable evidence of residential conversions of older buildings, such as much of the brewery warehousing and malthouses and a public house.”

Building Types and Layouts – Harbour South & Hope Sq

“Industrial Buildings: the former brewery (originally three separate firms that merged over time) had a series of specialised buildings related to the brewing trade: groups of maltings, where barley was steeped in water (to encourage germination), dried and roasted by the use of tanks, drying floors and kilns; warehouses, where spirits and other excisable goods were kept; and the main brewery itself, where the roasted malt barley was mixed with water in mash tuns, and the wort produced was mixed with sugar and hops, boiled in a copper, yeast added, fermentation occurred and beer produced. The boiling and pumping, as well as haulage of raw materials, were powered by steam engines. The former Weymouth brewery had other vital facilities, such as cooperage, bottling plant, accommodation for horses and a smithy. There were warehouses connected directly to malt floors and kilns, seen in Hope Street, where the No. 1 Malthouse had long roasting floors on two storeys, in parallel ranges and two attached square kilns with conical roofs and flues. There are other particularly impressive multi-storey maltings in Spring Road, Nos. 2 and 4, with kilns and bayed floors, fireproofed with iron and brick and ventilated. The main brewery has become “Brewer’s Quay”, with much remaining of the structure and two steam engines preserved, as well as some other brewing equipment. All the other outbuildings have been converted to housing (including the No 1 Malthouse kilns) or office use.”

Key listed buildings:

“Brewers Quay, nearby former bonded warehouses and smithy, a remarkable intact group of mid and late C19-early C20 industrial buildings, along with Malthouses Nos. 1, 2 and 4, in Hope St, Spring Rd and Newton’s Rd; of great character and townscape presence with many attractive uses of materials and “functional tradition” details.

Condition of Buildings - Harbour South & Hope Sq:

“Condition is generally good, although there are varying degrees of maintenance or repair problems, such as the vacant Brewers Quay block where there is evidence of underused upper floors and window and roof features in poor condition.”

Page 15

6. HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

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

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:

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

Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED. There is access via lifts to a number of dwellings and some of those dwellings are flats providing single level accommodation. Furthermore there is also lift access to the museum.

8. CONSULTATIONS :

Environment Agency – No objection. The flood risk assessment (FRA) sets out design flood levels although we note these have not been updated from 2015 to the present day. However, given the increase between 2015 and 2018 is relatively small (only a couple of centimetres) we do not envisage it necessary to update the FRA because it will make no material difference to the design of measures proposed to mitigate flood risk from the sea for the lifetime of the proposed development.

The FRA confirms the intention to incorporate a continuous flood defence wall within the site to protect the proposed residential units and provide flood resistance and resilience measures.

Recommend conditions regarding:

Page 16 1. Development to be carried out in accordance with FRA and the mitigation measures detailed within it, including minimum ground floor levels, continuous flood defence wall and flood resistance and resilience measures. 2. The submission and approval of a Flood Plan (Flood Emergency/Evacuation Plan) prior to first occupation. Erection of flood warning and emergency evacuation procedure notices in accordance with an agreed scheme. 3. Reporting and dealing with unexpected contamination.

Historic England –We were generally in support of a mixed use scheme in 2014- 15 that maintained the site’s overall heritage significance whilst meeting local economic needs and providing it with a sustainable future. We did, though, identify some individual concerns where we felt a harmful impact might arise from specific alterations proposed, in particular in relation to the building’s roofscape and the inter-relationship of its different elements. This letter concentrates on the principal areas of change which affect the site’s contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the grade II* listed Malthouse No. 4. One of the critical changes in this scheme is the introduction of more residential accommodation at high level – either by converting roofspaces, creating “penthouse” apartments on top of the main block or extending the height of lower ranges. As well as the consequential impacts on historic fabric which your Conservation Officer has commented on, these have cumulative visual impacts on the exterior of the building in both the relationship between different elements of it to each other, and to its surrounding area.

The additional development also causes further pressure to enlarge circulation and access routes within the building. In this application both the lift shaft and staircase block have been heightened, meaning that they break the eaves line on the adjacent buildings and acquire an undesirable visual dominance, bringing them into conflict with important architectural elements of the historic building.

The extension of rooftop development on the block overlooking Hope Square is also of concern, since it affects a principal façade which might be considered to be the building’s architectural tour de force. Extending the new roofline to either side of the façade’s decorative gable has the effect of merging different architectural elements and competing with the clear hierarchy of the historic building’s distinctive roofscape. Anything more than fleeting visibility of the rooftop extensions would be highly undesirable within the Conservation Area.

The other consequence of increasing residential accommodation into roofspaces is the need to introduce natural light into them. The proposed roof vents which would be highly visible on a number of ranges in their current size and numbers form an unduly prominent feature and should the LPA consider that the extra accommodation they serve is justified we suggest that it negotiates to reduce their visual impact.

Page 17 We understand that extensive pre-application discussions regarding this scheme have been held between the applicant and the LPA which we have not been involved with. We trust that a robust justification was sought for the intensification of use and the resulting heritage impact that it causes. In order for these amendments to be acceptable there needs to be the “clear and convincing justification” required by paragraph 132 of the NPPF, and any conflict between the conservation of the heritage assets and other aspects of the proposal need to be minimised, according to the NPPF para 129.

Historic England’s further comments on the amended plans – We would agree with the Conservation Officer that considerable progress has been made in amending certain design details, clarifying which historic fabric is to be retained and modifying materials. The substitution of natural cladding materials for artificial ones is welcomed and the revision made to the earlier triangular dormer window design is also an improvement, although a reduction in size would make the dormers more in proportion with windows beneath them.

However, there have been no significant amendments to the more fundamental alterations relating to the intensification of the building’s use. Historic England continues to have concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds, which need to be weighed in the balance against wider public benefits which would be deliverable by this scheme.

Theatres Trust – No comment.

DCC Archaeologist – Archaeological monitoring of groundworks is appropriate because of the site’s location in the historic core of Weymouth and a record of the changes to this historic structure needs to be made. To secure this there should be a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a scheme of investigation. The scheme shall cover archaeological fieldwork together with post-excavation work and publication of the works.

A written scheme of investigation has now been submitted and considered and the officer recommends a condition requiring the implementation of the scheme.

DCC Planning Obligations Manager – On the understanding that the development should be CIL liable I have no observations in that respect. The extant consent secures car parking to be associated with development on the land W&PBC lease currently on the Newberry Gardens Car Park. As the unit numbers have changed the quantum of spaces will also change. There will need to be a corresponding agreement to secure these spaces as per the extant consent.

DCC Highways – The location in relation to the town centre is regarded as “sustainable”. There are off street car parking spaces available, a number of

Page 18 which have been allocated for the new flats. Parking restrictions exist at various locations in the vicinity of the site and these could be legally amended, if required (using legislation outside of the planning process). The County Highway Authority is therefore of the opinion that the residual cumulative impact of the development cannot be thought to be “severe”, when consideration is given to the NPPF (2018) and, therefore has no objection subject to a condition regarding the provision of the parking and turning prior to first occupation or use and the retention thereafter of those areas.

DCC Rights of Way – No comment.

DCC LLFA – We have no in-principle objection to this application and accept that the site can be drained, however, at present the application lacks details with respect to drainage and offers no commitment to provide this detail at a later stage. Also note that no discussion has been entered into between the applicant and Wessex Water. This is important since the development may increase foul discharge and necessitate downstream capacity analysis and upgrades. The developer may be able to offset this by removal of surface water from the foul system, however, in order for Wessex Water to comment more detail is needed. We are content for this to come forward later in the process and can condition for this information but some commitment to provide this and awareness of what might be required should be demonstrated presently.

WPA Consultants – Have reviewed the Phase 1 desktop study incorporating a remediation strategy for this site and current application. The consultant needs to provide an assurance that the data has not changed significantly in the last five years. The remediation plan is in brief; a requirement for a CEMP with H & S specified action, a soils management plan and dealing with any currently unknown contamination issues. This appears logical in consideration of the information in the desktop study and current proposals. There will likely be further reporting to review in terms of approving the verification of the remediation as outlined. As a matter of good practice the consultant needs to update the environmental data pack assessment.

Further comments – Updated information (environmental data pack) noted and can be deemed to cover the concern over the date of such reporting. Other comments re. expectation of further reporting still apply.

Planning Policy – As the proposal is for retail development Policy ECON4 would be relevant. The policy advises that a sequential approach be applied to all retail and town centre uses. The site lies within the Town Centre Boundary and close to shopping frontage and the proposal includes some retail along with other town centre uses. As such the use and location fulfil the requirements of the sequential test. In some instances Policy ECON4 also requires an impact assessment. However, an impact assessment would not need to be applied in this instance as

Page 19 the floor area for the retail floor space would be less than the threshold in the Local Plan.

Policy WEY4 of the adopted local plan emphasises the importance of retaining a vibrant and diverse mix of uses at ground floor. The proposed development includes a mix of A1/A3 uses along the northern side of the building. These uses would be focused at ground floor and would face onto Hope Square facilitating active frontages and encouraging sitting out which is an important feature in this locality.

Retaining the Old Brewery as a tourist facility is also of great importance. As part of the most recent amendments additional floor area has been given over to the museum use. This will allow public access to the large historic brewing equipment and there is considered to be a wider public benefit through the restoration of the historic building. However the most recent proposal would also result in the reduction in the floor area of one of the cultural spaces and the loss of another through the conversion of the Cooper building to residential. Notwithstanding that the difference in the proportion of museum and cultural floorspace is relatively stable between the consented and current scheme.

The principle of development as proposed is broadly supported through the adopted local plan Policy WEY4. The proposed mix of uses and the potential public benefits in terms of the restoration of the building and the provision of cultural facilities, restaurants and retail uses would be in the public benefit and outweigh any potential harm. Furthermore whilst the increase of residential units is not ideal, at the expense of one of the cultural spaces, the overall mix of uses is considered to be acceptable and would support the viability of the area and the additional residential units would count towards the Councils shortfall in housing.

Environmental Health – The addendum to the 2015 Air Quality report is accepted. Suitable noise assessments will need to be provided in relation to any plant proposed to be installed within the development. Any noise assessment should consider the cumulative effect of the different plant and equipment to be used within the development area. Request a condition regarding the reporting of unexpected contamination. Request a condition regarding the submission and approval of a demolition method statement and construction environmental management plan.

Tree Officer – No comments.

Technical Services – Refer to EA comments re. flood risk and a condition regarding a flood evacuation and warning plan.

Conservation Officer – There are no conservation objections to the conversion of the Cooper’s building to 3 residential units or to the removal of the 2 copper vats in the main Brewhouse. However a number of detailed issues were raised over

Page 20 the proposals for the Cooper’s building. In respect of the brewery building the addition of 9 further flats within Brewers Quay (over and above those already approved), along with several fire escape staircases will naturally result in considerably more loss of historic fabric, which is regrettable. It is appreciated that a precedent has been set by the 2010 approval and this is indeed an improved scheme to that. However there is scope to further reduce the degree of harmful impact to character and fabric through some relatively modest changes to the proposed scheme. Details were provided regarding a number of areas of concern and possible amendments.

Further comments of the Conservation Officer in September following receipt of amended plans – Notwithstanding the comments by Historic England, I feel the amended plans go a very significant way to addressing the concerns. Ultimately, the removal of the triangular dormers, different cladding materials and amendments to the Coopers Building create a huge improvement to the previous proposal. I share the concerns raised by Historic England over the extended lift shaft arrangement, which is rather prominent and out of keeping in appearance. The reduction of this, even by one storey would be a significant improvement. The officer also remains concerned about the historic windows throughout and still believe that a window schedule is needed which clearly outlines those in the main brewery building which are to be retained.

Further comments of the Conservation Officer in October – I think most of the issues have been resolved and an on-balance decision needs to be made, subject of course to numerous conditions. It is clear that some of Historic England’s concerns have not been overcome and this will not have been aided by the fact that these were concerns were not shared by the previous Conservation Officer when giving pre-application advice.

Further comments of the Conservation Officer in November – The application process has been involved and I feel strongly that great steps have been made to improve the overall approach to conversion. It would be so worthwhile at this stage for the applicants to make some final steps to address the outstanding concerns before the application is determined.

9. REPRESENTATIONS :

9.1 2 representations supporting the application have been received raising the following points: - The continued deterioration of this building makes a conclusion to this planning application ever more critical. - Would hope that WPBC and DCC would work positively with the developer to make this project an appropriate conservation but also economically viable. - Don’t necessarily agree with some of the aspects of planning passed previously the building does need to be rescued and if work isn’t

Page 21 allowed to start soon it will become untenable and too expensive to restore. - Will need to adhere to uses shown on plans. - The variety of leisure facilities will attract visitors to the town and particularly the south harbourside, which is looking a bit sorry for itself with the closure of shops and lack of investment.

9.2 One representation has been received stating that it is difficult to see the extent of the new elevations. Another representation has been received regarding the location of parking for visitors to Shire Horse Mews within the Newberry Gardens Car Park. It would appear that the spaces allocated to Shire Horse Mews have at some point been relocated within the car park according to the representation and they would like them returned to their original location.

10. PLANNING ISSUES :

- Principle of development - Impact on heritage assets – listed buildings, conservation area and archaeology - Impact on residential amenity - Highway safety - Flooding and surface water drainage - Contamination - Affordable housing - CIL - S106 agreement - Other matters

Issues in respect of listed building application:

- Impact on heritage assets – listed buildings, conservation area and archaeology

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT :

11.1 Principle of development:

11.1.1 The site is within the defined development boundary for Weymouth and within the town centre area. Given its location the policies of the adopted local plan permit residential, retail and tourism provision subject to a number of considerations.

Page 22 11.1.2 The site is also within the area covered by Policy WEY4 of the adopted local plan. The policy says:

“The area around Custom House Quay, the Brewery, and its waterfront, will retain a mix of small scale restaurants, bars, cafes and retail uses. The old brewery will be retained as a major tourist facility where ancillary uses will be permitted that ensure the long-term maintenance of the tourist function and the future of this important listed building. Development should enhance the active waterfront area and the public realm including the removal of unnecessary street furniture, signage etc. and creation of areas for sitting-out.”

11.1.3 In respect of Policy WEY4 the proposals accommodate the museum within them, which is proposed to have a slighter greater floor area than the 2016 permission. The same floor area is shown as wet weather/exhibition space as previously. As such given that the previous scheme was considered to comply with the major tourist facility element of WEY4 the same conclusion can be reached in respect of the current scheme. There is a reduction in the extent of cultural space by 107 sq m. However helpfully the cultural space has now been defined as being for A1/B1/D1 uses and the description of development specifically refers to a cookery school reflecting some interest the applicant has had for the cultural space in the north west corner of the building. Such uses are considered to add to the potential tourist offer within the site.

11.1.4 WEY4 talks about retaining a mix of small scale restaurants, bars, cafes and retail uses and as per the previous scheme the units on the northern side of the building will be for A1/A3 uses. Units 3 and 4 are combined in this application to provide a single larger unit but the floor area of that unit would still only be 505 sq m. The applicant considers that having a larger unit within the mix may help attract a flagship operator. It could still be conditioned as previously that the layout of the A1/A3 units remains as per the approved ground floor layout to prevent further amalgamation of the spaces in the future, however that would not prevent a single operator using all the spaces should they wish to but they wouldn’t be able to physically amalgamate them without first obtaining the local planning authority’s consent.

11.1.5 WEY 4 refers to ancillary uses to ensure the long-term maintenance of the tourist function and the future of this important listed building. The 2016 permission includes 35 dwellings and the current application increases that to 47. The mix would be 11 x 1 bed, 27 x 2 bed and 9 x 3 bed dwellings. Most are apartments but some are maisonettes provided across up to 4 floors in some cases.

Page 23 11.1.6 The increase in residential units is based on the rationalisation of the space and optimising the number of residential units in order to aid the viability of the scheme according to the applicant. It provides a use beyond the tourist function in order to aid the viability of the proposals and to bring this deteriorating listed building back into a good state of repair and provide it with a long-term use. As the site is within the defined development boundary in accordance with Policy SUS2 the principle of residential development is in principle acceptable.

11.1.7 The Council cannot at present demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land (albeit only marginally under at 4.94 years) for both West Dorset District and Weymouth and Portland Borough, and this has some bearing on the consideration of the proposals.

11.1.8 In the NPPF (July, 2018), Section 2 – Achieving sustainable development – and the sub-section titled ‘The presumption in favour of sustainable development’ - paragraph 11 outlines the Government’s objectives for ‘Plan making’ and ‘Decision taking’.

11.1.9 Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

For decision-taking this means: - approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; or - where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of- date (footnote 7), granting permission unless:

the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed (footnote 6); or

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.

11.1.10 The sub-notes referred to at 5, 6, and 7, are outlined on page 6 of the NPPF. Footnote 6 is of relevance and advises:

“The policies referred to are those in this Framework relating to:……designated heritage assets (and other heritage assets of archaeological interest referred to in footnote 63 and areas at risk of flooding or coastal change.”

Footnote 7 is also of relevance and advises:

Page 24

“This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 73); or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the pervious three years. Transitional arrangements for the Housing Delivery Test are set out in Annex 1.”

11.1.11 Consideration will be given to the implications of paragraph 11 of the NPPF later in this report as the impacts and benefits of the scheme are considered.

11.2 Impact on heritage assets (applies to both planning and listed building consent applications):

11.2.1 The impact of both the 2010 scheme (committee resolution to approve) and the 2016 permission in terms of the listed building and Conservation Area must have been considered acceptable in order for those resolutions/decisions to have been made.

11.2.2 In many ways the current application is very similar to the 2016 scheme but there are some significant differences as outlined broadly in paragraphs 2.17 – 2.21 above.

11.2.3 Prior to the submission of this application there was pre-application discussions with former planning and conservation colleagues and it is understood that apart from some concerns about the removal of 2 copper vats the comments were generally favourable. When this application was initially submitted the conservation officer had a number of concerns about the scheme but following discussions with the applicant and their architects amended plans have been submitted that in the main address those concerns.

11.2.4 Historic England remain concerned about the extension of the lift shaft and glazed staircase and the extension of the rooftop development on the block overlooking Hope Square. These elements of the scheme are different to the 2016 permission. The applicant has however submitted a massing comparison study between the 2010, 2016 and current schemes which shows that the massing of those elements which Historic England are concerned about is very similar to the 2010 scheme.

11.2.5 In respect of the rooftop development on the block overlooking Hope Square the 2016 permission already includes rooftop development to the east of the decorative gable and whilst rooftop development is now

Page 25 proposed to the west of that gable it is considered to make the additions more symmetrical.

11.2.6 In respect of the extended lift shaft the applicant has highlighted that the proposed lift shaft is the same height as that proposed in the 2010 scheme which the local planning authority resolved to approve. In fact whilst in a slightly different position the 2010 scheme had a lift shaft that was taller than that now proposed. Furthermore the applicant considers the lift access to the upper level is an important contributing factor in making the use of the upper level viable for residential use and that the minimum height for the shaft is dictated by the European Lift Standard which determines the minimum height of the lift over-run above the upper access level and generates the form of the shaft proposed.

11.2.7 The site is within the Conservation Area and to the west of a grade II* listed building (Malthouse no. 4 (now 1 to 10 Groves Malthouse). There would be views from the surrounding streets of the proposed external alterations and additions to the buildings and the site is clearly visible in some views of Malthouse no. 4. The site is also visible from the north side of the harbour. However some of the views are limited by the varying heights of the buildings which make up Brewers Quay and other buildings in the vicinity. The impact of the proposals on these wider views and character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of other listed buildings in the vicinity must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

11.2.8 The buildings have evolved over time with many different elements, forms and varying heights amongst them. It is considered that the proposed alterations and extensions to the building would result in less than substantial harm to these designated assets reflecting the evolution of a new period in the history of these former brewery buildings. The level of harm needs to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal as required by paragraph 196 of the NPPF.

11.2.9 In terms of public benefits the principal one has to be bringing these buildings back into use with their repair and restoration ensuring their long-term future. The buildings have in the main stood empty for some years now and their condition has deteriorated over time. They are substantial buildings forming a key element of Hope Square and the area south of the harbour and for the buildings to deteriorate further and to remain empty would represent a real loss of opportunity in respect of preserving the buildings and maintaining a tourist facility and the vibrancy of this area. The Weymouth museum and its collection are already located within the building, albeit in temporary accommodation. The proposals see it maintained within the building in permanent accommodation and the existing brewery equipment that remains would be within these publicly

Page 26 accessible areas allowing the public to appreciate and have a greater understanding of the history of the site.

11.2.10 It is considered that these public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets, including the setting of other nearby listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

11.2.11 A written scheme of investigation in respect of archaeology has been submitted. The DCC archaeologist has considered the scheme and considers the impact of the development on archaeology to be acceptable subject to a condition requiring the implementation of the scheme.

11.3 Impact on residential amenity:

11.3.1 Much of the development is similar to that approved in 2016 and the impact therefore of the additional storeys on the existing properties to the east and the alterations facing north on St Leonard’s Road have already been considered acceptable previously.

11.3.2 Where the current scheme varies from the 2016 scheme and is in close proximity to existing dwellings is in respect of the additional floor and increased roof height to the western most element of the mews. This would result in the introduction of 9 west facing second floor windows (although due to levels they would appear as first floor windows on the west elevation) looking over the parking spaces and across the road to the existing terrace of properties in Newberry Gardens, which are significantly elevated above the road level. The distance between the new windows and the front elevation of the Newberry Gardens properties is between 10 – 19m as the buildings angle away from each other and so the distance increases. Such a distance between properties is not uncommon in the vicinity of the site given that there are many examples of a terrace facing another terrace directly across the road. It is considered that the proposed increase in the mass and height of this part of the Mews would have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of the existing properties in Newberry Gardens both in terms of privacy and the impact on light to the properties.

11.3.3 Dormer windows are proposed to part of the north elevation. There would be 3 blocks of 3 windows and these would face out over St Leonard’s Road and Hope Square. Due to the height of the roof at this point the windows would look out over nearby buildings and it is considered that they would have an acceptable on the residential amenity of nearby dwellings.

Page 27 11.3.4 Given that commercial uses, including restaurants, are proposed for parts of the building environmental health have recommended a condition that suitable noise assessments must be provided in relation to any plant proposed to be installed within the development. Any noise assessment should consider the cumulative effect of the different plant and equipment to be used within the development area and should also consider the impact of the existing sub-station on the proposed residential units in proximity to it. The condition should also require the submission of proposed attenuation methods and their subsequent implementation and retention. This will ensure that any plant and the existing sub-station would have an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of nearby existing dwellings and on the amenity of the proposed dwellings.

11.4 Highway safety:

11.4.1 There would be 46 parking spaces for the 47 residential units proposed and a similar level of cycle parking provision. The parking would be in Newberry Gardens and Newberry Gardens Car Park. There would be no parking provision for the non-residential/commercial uses. The highway authority has no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition regarding the provision and retention of the parking spaces.

11.4.2 The applicant was asked about providing an electric vehicle charging (EVC) point for the residents and general public. However whilst the Newberry Gardens Car Park is privately owned the spaces within it provide public parking, plus there are 27 spaces to be leased to WPBC and 4 private parking spaces in addition to the spaces to be used by the residents of the proposed dwellings. The applicant has advised that in addition to that the power supply within the car park would not be suitable as currently it’s only for lighting and the ticket machine. The cost of a suitable supply is in their view likely to be prohibitive and if the charging point were to be made for public use the cost of providing it would have to be applied to the residents service charge and in the view of the applicant they might challenge that given it would not be solely for the residents of the proposed development. A scheme for an EVC point has not therefore been forthcoming. However given issues around the viability of the development and the public benefits identified in paragraph 11.2.9 above it is considered that to insist on an EVC point may frustrate the development to the detriment of the benefits identified.

11.5 Flooding and surface water drainage:

11.5.1 In respect of the uses proposed for the site and the impact of flooding they have already been accepted by the 2016 permission for the development of the site for commercial and residential uses. The officer’s report from 2016 states “In general I am satisfied that this is a sequentially preferable

Page 28 site for the development proposals not least because it secures the regeneration of this important building.”

11.5.2 In respect of the current application the Environment Agency has no objection, subject to conditions, on the basis that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment confirms the intention to incorporate a continuous flood defence wall within the site to protect the proposed residential units and provide flood resistance and resilience measures. The first condition is therefore that the development is carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment and the mitigation measures detailed within it, including minimum ground floor levels, continuous flood defence wall and flood resistance and resilience measures. The second condition requires a flood plan to be submitted and approved prior to the first occupation of the building and the erection of flood warning and emergency evacuation procedure notices.

11.5.3 The Council’s technical services team has no objection to the proposals.

11.5.4 Dorset County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority were consulted on the application. They have identified that the applicant would need to do further work in due course regarding the existing and proposed drainage arrangements and that it is likely that the applicant will need to engage with Wessex Water. DCC LLFA have no-in principle objection to the application and accept that the site can be drained. They are content for the information to come forward later in the process and this can be conditioned but were seeking from the applicant a commitment to provide the information and an awareness of what might be required. The agent has since confirmed that they are aware of this response and the issues involved and are in agreement to the matter being conditioned.

11.5.5 Subject to a number conditions it is considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on flooding and surface water drainage.

11.6 Contamination:

11.6.1 The applicant has submitted with this application a phase 1 ground condition assessment and remediation strategy which has been considered by both the Council’s contaminated land consultant (WPA) and the Environment Agency.

11.6.2 WPA have received an updated environmental data pack assessment and the remediation strategy for the site and consider that the remediation plan appears logical subject to further reporting to review and approve the verification of the remediation as outlined. This along with the reporting of unexpected contamination as recommended by the Environment Agency

Page 29 can be conditioned. Subject to those conditions it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact in respect of contaminated land and the risks associated with it.

11.7 Affordable Housing:

11.7.1 There is no affordable housing provision in either the 2016 permission for Brewers Quay or the associated planning permission for residential development on Newtons Road Car Park. At the time of those applications the applicant submitted a viability appraisal that indicated that the proposed scheme at Brewers Quay (even taking into account enabling development on the Newtons Road Car Park) was not viable and could not provide S106 contributions or affordable housing. The authority took independent viability advice which accepted the view put forward by the applicant. The S106 agreement in respect of the 2016 permissions achieves a link between the two developments on the basis that at that time if the development on Newtons Road Car Park had been considered in isolation then that may have been viable and as such could have contributed to affordable housing and S106 contributions. The S106 agreement also required a review of the viability at the reserved matters stage and that subsequently took place in 2016/2017 when the reserved matters for the development on Newtons Road Car Park were considered and approved. The conclusion at that time was that the developments were still not viable.

11.7.2 The applicants submitted a viability appraisal in respect of the current application and it has been independently reviewed. The appraisal is purely for Brewers Quay and concludes that the scheme is not viable and cannot make a contribution to affordable housing. In terms of the viability of the development the applicants have indicated that it would continue to be cross-subsidised by the development on Newtons Road Car Park but have said that the deliverability/viability of the schemes as a whole is driven by the completion of Brewers Quay not Newtons Road Car Park and that the S106 agreement linkage would ensure that both sites are delivered.

11.7.3 The proposed development of Brewers Quay is not viable and can not therefore provide 35% affordable housing.

11.8 CIL:

11.8.1 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 at £0 per square metre CIL rate. The development proposal is CIL liable. The Weymouth CIL rate is £93 plus the new index linking meaning it would be £111.60. The CIL charge is approximately

Page 30 £73,209.60 with index linking. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of development. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations (Reg. 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-in Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted.

11.9 S106 agreement:

11.9.1 The existing 2016 permission has a S106 agreement associated with it which requires the following:

- The owners to enter into a museum development agreement and then to comply with that agreement.

- To provide free of charge 27 car parking spaces within the Newberry Gardens Car Park site for the use of the Council for a period of 25 years. Not to occupy any dwelling until the Lease has been completed.

- To retain public access for car parking to Newtons Road Car Park until such time as a planning permission is implemented for an alternative use.

- To comply with the phasing plan within the agreement which ultimately requires the Brewers Quay development to have been completed prior to the occupation of the last 4 dwellings on the Newtons Road Site.

- To provide an updated viability appraisal upon the submission of a reserved matters application for Newtons Road Car Park.

11.9.2 The applicant is willing to enter into a new S106 agreement in respect of the current application. The agreement would secure the museum development agreement and continue to provide free of charge 27 car parking spaces within the Newberry Gardens Car Park site for the use of the Council for a period of 25 years.

11.9.3 The requirement in the existing S106 agreement to retain public access for car parking to Newtons Road Car Park would not be included in any new agreement as development has commenced and the former car park has not been in use for sometime now.

11.9.4 The other element that would not be included would be the requirement for an updated viability appraisal as the Newtons Road Car Park reserved

Page 31 matters have already been approved and at that time an updated viability appraisal was submitted and considered.

11.9.5 The applicant wishes to amend the phasing of the development compared to the existing S106 agreement. Currently the development at Brewers Quay has to be completed prior to the occupation of the last 4 dwellings at Newtons Road Car Park. This was to ensure a link between the two developments on the basis that residential development at Newtons Road Car Park, without affordable housing provision, was enabling development for the Brewers Quay scheme.

11.9.6 It is proposed that such a link is retained and that the museum, commercial and cultural spaces would all be completed ready for first use, along with the external envelope and external alterations to the whole of Brewers Quay and the Coopers Building and service runs installed along with the internal alterations made prior to the occupation of the last 4 dwellings at Newtons Road Car Park. The applicant would not be required to fit out the proposed residential units for occupation. The fit out of the residential units would take place in a later phase of development. The applicant has suggested that the development, excluding the fit out of the residential units, could be completed in 16 months and such a timescale could be incorporated into the S106 agreement along with the requirement that development commence on the Brewers Quay scheme prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on the Newtons Road Car Park site.

11.9.10 The above proposal would see Brewers Quay and the Coopers Building repaired and extended externally and therefore made watertight and fit for purpose moving forward into the future. It would also see the museum, commercial and cultural spaces provided ready for first use in line with Policy WEY4 and the retention of the old brewery as a tourist facility where ancillary uses will be permitted that ensure the long term maintenance of the tourist function and the future of this listed building. This would all be required prior to the occupation of the last 4 dwellings at Newtons Road Car Park site and a further incentive would be that no dwelling could be occupied at the Newtons Road site until the Brewers Quay permission had been implemented. This should provide motivation for the developer to implement the permission and to subsequently complete the required works otherwise they would be unable to occupy 4 out of the 18 dwellings on the Newtons Road site.

11.9.11 It is considered that this linkage would offer the developer flexibility with regards to the timing of the fitting out of the residential units and even if those units were never fitted out and occupied the works that would have taken place would have ensured that Brewers Quay was in a much better state of repair than currently aiding its long term future and making the completion of the scheme more attractive to an alternative developer.

11.10 Other matters:

Page 32 11.10.1 An Air Quality report was submitted with the previous applications for the site at the request of environmental health. As part of this current application environmental health have considered the addendum to the 2015 Air Quality report and consider it acceptable and that the development would not adversely impact on air quality.

11.10.2 One of the representations received is in respect of car parking spaces for the Shire Horse Mews properties within the Newberry Gardens Car Park. According to the representation 2 spaces should be provided within the car park for Shire Horse Mews. The applicant refers to there being 4 private car parking spaces continued to be provided in the car park as per the existing arrangement. If there is a condition on a planning permission regarding the retention of parking spaces for these properties then the applicant would need to comply with that condition notwithstanding the current proposals.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY :

12.1 Planning application – WP/18/00298/FUL

12.1.1 The site has an extensive planning history and this application reflects much of the previous schemes for the site. There are existing planning and listed building consents for the site which are the fall back position should permissions not be forthcoming for the current schemes.

12.1.2 The current scheme would accommodate the town museum and also provide a number of ancillary uses to aid the mix of uses in the wider area in order to ensure the long-term maintenance of the tourist function that the building provides and the future of this listed building.

12.1.3 The site is within the defined development boundary for Weymouth and the Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply. The provision of 47 dwellings would make a not insignificant contribution to the supply of housing.

12.1.4 The alterations and additions to the building are considered to have less than substantial harm on the listed building and character and appearance of the Conservation Area. As such the level of harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal as required by the NPPF.

12.1.5 The key public benefit would be the repair of the listed buildings which are currently in a deteriorating condition, securing their long term future. Bringing the buildings back into a greater level of use would add to the vibrancy of this area and the mix of uses. The tourist facility would be given a permanent home within the building. The provision of dwellings

Page 33 would contribute to the Council’s housing supply. These are considered to be significant benefits.

12.1.6 Subject to a number of conditions it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on residential amenity, flooding and flood risk including surface water management, contaminated land, archaeology, air quality and highway safety. 12.1.7 Having regard to the NPPF it is considered that there is no clear reason for refusing the development and that the benefits to the scheme outweigh the harm.

12.2 Listed building consent application – WP/18/00299/LBC

12.2.1 It is considered that the proposed alterations to the buildings would result in less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets – listed buildings and Conservation Area.

12.2.2 Given the public benefits already identified above it is considered that the benefits outweigh the harm to the heritage assets.

13 RECOMMENDATION:

Planning application – WP/18/00298/FUL

Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve subject to the completion of a S106 agreement and conditions. The S106 agreement is to secure the following:

- To enter into and comply with a museum development agreement.

- To provide free of charge 27 car parking spaces within the Newberry Gardens Car Park site for the use of the Council for a period of 25 years. Not to occupy any dwelling until the lease has been completed.

- To comply with the phasing plan within the agreement. No dwelling on Newtons Road Car Park to be first occupied until the development at Brewers Quay has commenced.

- That no more than 14 dwellings shall be occupied at Newtons Road Car Park unless and until the museum, wet weather/exhibition space, commercial and cultural spaces are ready for first use and that all repairs and alterations to the exterior of Brewers Quay and the Coopers Building have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and the internal alterations have been made and the service runs installed.

Page 34 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0001 Proposed Basement Floor Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0400 Coopers Building Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Drawing Number 1731- 0407 Rev C Coopers Building Proposed Roof Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0408 Rev B Proposed North Elevations - Drawing Number 1731-1303 Rev C Proposed East Elevations - Drawing Number 1731-1302 Rev C Proposed Elevations A & B - Drawing Number 1731-1311 Rev B Proposed Elevations C, D, E & F - Drawing Number 1731-1312 Rev B Proposed Elevations 6 - Drawing Number 1731-1308 Rev A Proposed Elevations 7 - Drawing Number 1731-1309 Rev B Proposed Elevations 8 - Drawing Number 1731-1310 Rev B Proposed Section J - Drawing Number 1731-1209 Rev A Proposed internal elevations - Drawing Number 1731 – 1316 Proposed Ground Floor Plan - 1731-0401 Rev D Proposed First Floor Plan - 1731-0402 Rev A Proposed Second Floor Plan - 1731-0403 Rev C Proposed Third Floor Plan - 1731-0404 Rev C Proposed Fourth Floor Plan - 1731-0405 Rev B Proposed Fifth Floor Plan - 1731-0406 Rev B Proposed Roof Plan - 1731-0409 Rev B Proposed West Elevation - Drawing Number 1731-1300 Rev D Proposed Mews Elevation 1 - Drawing Number 1731-1304 Rev C Proposed Mews Elevation 2 - Drawing Number 1731-1305 Rev C Proposed Mews Elevation 3 - Drawing Number 1731-1306 Rev C Proposed Elevations 5 - Drawing Number 1731-1307 Rev B Proposed Link Bridge Elevations - Drawing Number 1731-1313 Rev B Proposed South Elevation Drwg no. 1731-1301 Rev D

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

2. 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).

3. The floor area of any retail/restaurant (Class A1/A3) unit hereby approved shall not exceed 505 sq. m and the layout of the

Page 35 retail/restaurant units shall remain as detailed on the ground floor layout plan.

Reason: To protect the nature of the development with regard to its important tourist location and its relationship to the town centre.

4. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment (Flood Risk Assessment Update, PBA, April 2018) and the mitigation measures detailed within it and the appendices, including minimum ground levels, continuous flood defence wall and flood resistance and resilience measures.

Reason: To reduce the risk and impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants.

5. Prior to first occupation of the dwellings or use of the commercial/museum spaces a flood plan, including a flood emergency/evacuation plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include details of flood warning and emergency evacuation procedure notices, their numbers, positions and wordings. No dwelling shall be occupied and the commercial/museum spaces shall not be first used until the notices have been erected in accordance with the approved details. Thereafter the notices shall be permanently retained and shall be kept legible and clear of obstruction.

Reason: To ensure that owners and occupiers of the premises are aware that the area is at risk of flooding, and the emergency evacuation procedure and route(s) to be used during flood events.

6. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding or overwhelming of existing drainage infrastructure and to protect water quality.

7. Prior to the commencement of development details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for

Page 36 adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding.

8. No development shall be commenced until a construction environmental management plan, including details of methods for any elements of demolition, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include arrangements for protecting the environment and residents from noise, vibration and dust and include provisions for the removal of any potentially hazardous waste found/generated on site. It shall also include hours of demolition/construction. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the environment and residential amenity.

9. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the remediation strategy “Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment and Remediation Strategy” by PBA and dated August 2018. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

10. In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, this must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment, conducted in accordance with recognised good practice, and a proposed remediation scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and approval. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with

Page 37 those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors.

11. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the written scheme of investigation for a programme of archaeological works by Terrain Archaeology dated July 2018.

Reason: In the interests of archaeology and heritage assets.

12. Before the development hereby approved is first occupied or utilised a plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority showing the parking spaces and turning to be for the use of residents of the proposed dwellings. The turning and parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the development being first occupied or utilised and shall thereafter be 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.

13. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied until the cycle parking/storage has been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter the cycle parking/storage shall be permanently retained.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable transport.

14. No kitchen extracts, air conditioning or other mechanical plant shall be first installed until a BS4142 type noise assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and its measures have been implemented. The noise assessment must indicate existing background levels, predicted noise levels from all of the plant (including cumulative impacts) and any attenuation method that may be required. The assessment will also consider the impact of the sub-station on the amenity of the proposed dwellings and any attenuation that may be required in respect of that. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved attenuation measures which shall be permanently retained unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of the occupants of the new development and surrounding residential properties.

Page 38 15. No dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied until details of hard landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

16. No development shall be commenced until details and samples of all materials for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted information shall include details and samples of the mortar mixes and any proposed finishes such as paint or varnishing of the external wall materials. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the listed buildings and Conservation Area.

17. No new windows or doors shall be first installed until a schedule of the existing window and doors indicating which are to be repaired or replaced shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule should cross-reference to 1:10 elevations and 1:5 sections for all new windows and doors and the details shall also include materials and finished colour. Replacements of historic doors/windows should match the originals in terms of material, finish, glazing depth and detailing unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area.

18. All new and replacement rainwater goods shall be cast metal painted black.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area.

19. The rooflight(s) hereby approved shall be of a 'conservation area type' such that it/they shall not protrude above the plane of the roof.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in the interest of visual amenity and in the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building.

Page 39

20. No alterations to new or existing roofs shall be carried out until details and drawings at a scale of 1:10 of the eaves details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of character and appearance of the listed building.

21. No new vents, flues, extracts or ducts shall be first installed or erected until details of them including their size, appearance, materials, colour and elevation drawings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building.

22. The glazed link bridge shall not be first installed until a detailed elevation drawing of the bridge and details of the method of fixing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building.

23. No new lettering or signage shall be fixed to the exterior of the building unless details of the appearance, size, materials, finish and method of fixing of the lettering or signage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area.

Listed building consent application – WP/18/00299/LBC

Approve subject to the following conditions:

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

Location Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0001 Proposed Basement Floor Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0400

Page 40 Coopers Building Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0407 Rev C Coopers Building Proposed Roof Plan - Drawing Number 1731-0408 Rev B Proposed North Elevations - Drawing Number 1731-1303 Rev C Proposed East Elevations - Drawing Number 1731-1302 Rev C Proposed Elevations A & B - Drawing Number 1731-1311 Rev B Proposed Elevations C, D, E & F - Drawing Number 1731-1312 Rev B Proposed Elevations 6 - Drawing Number 1731-1308 Rev A Proposed Elevations 7 - Drawing Number 1731-1309 Rev B Proposed Elevations 8 - Drawing Number 1731-1310 Rev B Proposed Section J - Drawing Number 1731-1209 Rev A Proposed internal elevations - Drawing Number 1731 – 1316 Proposed Ground Floor Plan - 1731-0401 Rev D Proposed First Floor Plan - 1731-0402 Rev A Proposed Second Floor Plan - 1731-0403 Rev C Proposed Third Floor Plan - 1731-0404 Rev C Proposed Fourth Floor Plan - 1731-0405 Rev B Proposed Fifth Floor Plan - 1731-0406 Rev B Proposed Roof Plan - 1731-0409 Rev B Proposed West Elevation - Drawing Number 1731-1300 Rev D Proposed Mews Elevation 1 - Drawing Number 1731-1304 Rev C Proposed Mews Elevation 2 - Drawing Number 1731-1305 Rev C Proposed Mews Elevation 3 - Drawing Number 1731-1306 Rev C Proposed Elevations 5 - Drawing Number 1731-1307 Rev B Proposed Link Bridge Elevations - Drawing Number 1731-1313 Rev B Proposed South Elevation Drwg no. 1731-1301 Rev D

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

2. 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).

3. No development shall be commenced until details and samples of all materials for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted information shall include details and samples of the mortar mixes and any proposed finishes such as paint or varnishing of the external wall materials. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and materials.

Page 41 Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the listed buildings and Conservation Area.

4. No new windows or doors shall be first installed until a schedule of the existing window and doors indicating which are to be repaired or replaced shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schedule should cross-reference to 1:10 elevations and 1:5 sections for all new windows and doors and the details shall also include materials and finished colour. Replacements of historic doors/windows should match the originals in terms of material, finish, glazing depth and detailing unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area.

5. All new and replacement rainwater goods shall be cast metal painted black.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area.

6. The rooflight(s) hereby approved shall be of a 'conservation area type' such that it/they shall not protrude above the plane of the roof.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory external appearance in the interest of visual amenity and in the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building.

7. No alterations to new or existing roofs shall be carried out until details and drawings at a scale of 1:10 of the eaves details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of character and appearance of the listed building.

8. No new vents, flues, extracts or ducts shall be first installed or erected until details of them including their size, appearance, materials, colour and elevation drawings have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 42 Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building.

9. The glazed link bridge shall not be first installed until a detailed elevation drawing of the bridge and details of the method of fixing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building.

10. No new lettering or signage shall be fixed to the exterior of the building unless details of the appearance, size, materials, finish and method of fixing of the lettering or signage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area.

11. No development shall commence on the conversion of the Coopers Building until internal elevation drawings showing the exposed historic trusses to be retained have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building.

12. No new wall, floor or ceiling treatment shall take place until details of the proposed wall, floor or ceiling treatment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building.

Page 43 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/17/00846/OUT

APPLICATION SITE: Caravan Sales Concession Area, Goulds Garden Centre, Littlemoor Road, Weymouth DT3 6AD

PROPOSAL: Erect up to 24 flats

APPLICANT: Mr Farmer

CASE OFFICER: Emma Telford

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Bruce, Cllr Farquharson & Cllr Bruce

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning to approve subject to a Section 106 to address affordable housing and conditions

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The application site is located on land adjacent to Gould’s Garden Centre. To the north of the site is Gould’s Garden Centre, to the east are some residential properties and the site is bounded to the south by Littlemoor Road and residential development beyond. To the west is West Dorset Aquatics and other land that makes up the garden centre complex.

1.2 The application site is located within the defined development boundary. The site is also within an area of outstanding natural beauty and is in close proximity to the Local Plan allocated site LITT 1 to the west on the same side of Littlemoor Road.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 The proposal originally consisted of 36 flats but in response to consultations this has since been amended to up to 24 flats. The application is for outline permission with the access and all other matters reserved. Indicative drawings have been submitted which show three blocks, two storey in height with parking located to the rear of the units.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

Application No. Proposal Decision Decision Date

04/00149/OUT Construction of 3 new dwellings Approved 15/07/2004

06/00161/OUT Erect 5 dwellings Allowed at 29/01/2007 Appeal

Page 45 09/00596/OTL Extension of time limit for Approved 10/12/2009 implementation of planning permission for the erection of 5 dwellings (appeal ref APP/P1235/A/06/2024256/NWF) 12/00529/OUT Extension of time limit for Approved 03/09/2012 implementation of planning permission to erect 5 dwellings (reference 09/00596/OTL)

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

4.1 National Planning policy Framework (NPPF) 2018

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

2. Achieving sustainable development 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Decision-making:

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision- makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

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

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

 Int1. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development  Env1. Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest  Env3. Green Infrastructure Network  Env10. The Landscape and Townscape Setting  Env11. The Pattern of Streets and Spaces  Env12. The Design and Positioning of Buildings  Env16. Amenity  Sus1. The Level of Economic and Housing Growth

Page 46  Sus2. Distribution of Development  Hous1. Affordable Housing  Hous4. Development of Flats, Hostels and Houses in Multiple Occupation  Com7. Creating a Safe and Efficient transport Network  Com9. Parking Standards in New Development  Com10. The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

5.1 Supplementary Planning Documents

 Urban Design (2002)  Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty: A Framework for the Future AONB Management Plan 2014 – 2019  Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013  DCC Parking standards guidance

6. HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

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

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:

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

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

This applications seeks outline permission so the drawings are indicative at this stage but show parking in close proximity to the units and as the proposal is for flats residential units would be available that are entirely on the ground floor for

Page 47 less mobile people. In addition as part of the access arrangements to the site the kerbs would be dropped both sides of the road to be flush with the carriageway and provided tactile paving.

8. CONSULTATIONS:

8.1 Natural England – Natural England has no comment to make on this application.

8.2 Dorset Police Crime Prevention – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.3 Health and Safety Executive – The proposed development site which you have identified does not currently lie within the consultation distance (CD) of a major hazard site or major accident hazard pipeline; therefore at present HSE does not need to be consulted on any developments on this site. However, should there be a delay submitting a planning application for the proposed development on this site, you may wish to approach HSE again to ensure that there have been no changes to CDs in this area in the intervening period.

8.4 Dorset Waste Partnership – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.5 Wessex Water – Holding Objection – Layout conflicts with Statutory Easement

There is a 600mm water main running along the western boundary of the site. This is a major trunk main and there must be no construction within 6 metres either side of the water main (including changes to ground levels) and no tree planting. The 12m easement strip is the minimum width necessary as Wessex Water acting as Statutory Undertaker require 24 hour unrestricted access to this strategic main for the purposes of maintenance and repair. The line of the water main must be accurately located on site and marked on deposited drawings.

We would like to place a holding objection until the potential conflict with our statutory easement is resolved. We request that the developer provides a site layout showing the line of the water main and the 12m easement clearly marked (6m either side of the main), to confirm that the proposed buildings do not conflict with the statutory easement.

8.6 Scotia Gas Networks – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.7 DCC Flood Risk Management Team – The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low risk/fluvial flooding), in accordance with indicative flood mapping provided by the Environment Agency’s (EA). Equally, it is seen to be unaffected by indicative

Page 48 mapping of both surface and ground water flooding. The site is understood to fall generally north to south, whilst prevailing ground conditions are understood from BGS data to comprise of a bedrock and shallow/superficial layers derived from Sedimentary/Mudstone formations, namely Kimmeridge Clay Formations. Therefore, infiltration rates are anticipated to be low, and are unlikely to support the use of soakaways for the management of surface water. We previously highlighted that only limited information has been supplied, and that supporting documents failed to outline a conceptual strategy of surface water management. We also highlighted that section 12 of the relevant application form had identified the proposed discharge of surface water runoff to a main sewer, although this arrangement was unsubstantiated. The supporting application form has been amended or replaced and now identifies the adoption of sustainable drainage, rather than assumed connected to a sewer system.

Whilst we appreciate that this proposal relates to a Brownfield, or previously developed site, the applicant should supply a viable & deliverable scheme of surface water management, based upon consideration of prevailing ground conditions & relevant SuDs hierarchy, and should endeavour to match relevant Greenfield runoff rate where possible.

The current proposal does not appear to be supported by a site specific drainage strategy or other documents that adequately explain this element of the scheme. The (revised/replaced) Design & Access Statement listed on the planning portal does not address surface water management, other than the apparent inclusion of a notional pond feature in the south west corner of the site, as shown on the Indicative Master Plan provided.

Whilst this feature is annotated as Rain Water Attenuation Pond, the design concept is not explained. The pond appears to sit within the 6m exclusion zone for an adjacent water main, and is not shown to have a point of discharge to a receiving system. If this pond is intended to act as an infiltration basin, this methodology will require substantiation via adequate ground investigation and infiltration testing at this (outline) stage. If it is to provide attenuation prior to discharge to an existing surface water sewer this is equally to be explained and supported with the in-principle agreement of the operator (Wessex Water). In the absence of such supporting information DCC and indeed WPBC cannot be confident that the scheme is viable, or can be delivered in the manner explained above.

On this basis, we (DCC FRM) reiterate our previous response and recommend that a (Holding) objection be applied to this proposal, pending the supply and approval of a conceptual strategy of surface water management.

8.8 DCC Public Health Dorset – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

Page 49 8.9 DCC Highways – The County Highway Authority has no objection in principle subject to an acceptable amended plan being submitted showing the following revisions upon receipt of which final observations will be provided:

 The proposed access is too close to the adjacent boundary which restricts visibility to the nearside approach visibility splay to the requirements of Manual for Streets can’t be accommodated as there isn’t sufficient width of highway verge.  The “L” shaped access road results in there being no turning for large vehicles; e.g. the refuse vehicle.

A “T” shaped access would overcome the above issues.

8.10 Dorset AONB Partnership – Concerning the above application, I herein provide comments from the Dorset AONB Team. Overall my review has led me to conclude that the applications would constitute overdevelopment in this part of the AONB and therefore consider there to be significant conflict with Local Plan Policy ENV1 and the AONB’s Management Plan. I note that your Urban Design Officer has raised significant concerns, particularly effects on the AONB. I would like to support the comments made and provide an additional layer of detail concerning the AONB’s policies.

The site is located within Dorset AONB, on previously developed land, presently occupied by a caravan storage facility. Nearby development includes Gould’s Garden Centre, Westfield Arts College, West Dorset Aquatics and a number of residential properties, typically of single or two storey height. To the south of the site and Littlemoor Road, recently constructed residential development has been built to the east of Louviers Road, outside of the AONB. This development predominantly contains two and three storey buildings. Notably, the site to the south is at a notably lower than that of the application site. In addition to the above development, the Local Plan has allocated land to the west, within the AONB, for approximately 500 dwellings, as well as employment uses. Part of the allocation is subject to a presently undetermined outline application. The illustrative masterplan for this site envisages a four storey hotel building toward Bincombe Bumps Roundabout, as a form of landmark building.

I understand that the application site has previously gained permission for 5 dwellings, granted at appeal. Notwithstanding this prior permission, which has lapsed, I consider that there are strong grounds for constraining the extent of development on this site. In my opinion the proposed 36 flats arranged in three four storey blocks would significantly exceed the capacity of the site and result in an undesirable form of urbanisation within the AONB. Protecting the AONB from creeping urbanisation would be entirely consistent with the AONB’s landscape policies and guidance, which consistently recognises the need to limit the effect of urban development on the AONB in this area.

Page 50 The site is located on the fringes of Preston and Littlemoor, in an area where these settlements are increasingly becoming adjoined. As defined by the AONB’s Landscape Character Assessment (LCA), the site is located within the Osmington Ridge and Vale landscape character area, with the South Dorset Escarpment being in close proximity, to the north. Both areas have suffered decline in character and condition for reasons including the physical presence and visual influence of development, particularly the urban fringe of Weymouth and Preston. This point is underpinned by analysis contained within the LCA. This document contains references to the character of the broad landscape character types (‘Ridge & Vale’ and ‘Chalk Ridge / Escarpment) and the more localised landscape character areas (‘Osmington Ridge & Vale’ and ‘South Dorset Escarpment’). I have included those references within LCA that I consider most relevant to the application below:

‘Ridge & Vale’ landscape character type and the ‘Osmington Ridge and Vale’ character area:  The landscape Osmington Ridge & Vale landscape character area is judged to be in moderate and declining condition. This situation is considered unsatisfactory, considering the statutory purpose of the AONB, this being the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Area.  Settlement and land cover in the character area is described as: “Rural nucleated settlements, made of limestone with well-defined edges are found along the vales. Although the east of the area has a rural character, the landscape is subject to a host of urban influences towards Weymouth.”  It is noted that within this landscape character type: “Increasing traffic levels and a host of urban fringe developments have brought pressures for further development and associated amenity planting and signage.”  The above point is reflected within the overall objective for this landscape character type, which states we should aim “Re-create and improve the urban fringe landscapes with new woodland planting, greenspace provision and reduce the impact of urban fringe and visitor based landuses.” Consequently, a key question to be asked of applications in this area is whether they would reduce or mitigate the impact of urban fringe development, thereby conserving character and condition in an area where decline can be observed. I consider that the proposed development would notably exacerbate the influence of urban fringe development.

‘Chalk Ridge/Escarpment’ landscape character type and the ‘South Dorset Escarpment’ character area:  The South Dorset Escarpment landscape character area is judged to be in moderate and declining condition. Again, this situation is considered unsatisfactory, considering the statutory purpose of the AONB, this being the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the Area.  The planning guidelines for this landscape character type recommend that we should: “Protect and enhance important views to and from the ridge/escarpment.” I consider that this statement to be relevant to this

Page 51 application given its close proximity to the escarpment (approx. 300m to the north).  The planning guidelines for this landscape type recommend we should: “Maintain the undeveloped character of the scarp and the contrast with the ridge base farmsteads. Any new development should be small scale and should respect the distinct nucleated form along the surrounding edges of the area and should not extend onto the lower slopes.” Whilst recognising that the development is not located on the scarp, it is close of its foot. Although there is further development between the application site and the scarp, the form and vertical scale of the proposed flats is of concern because it has the potential to diminish the character and appearance of the escarpment.

The Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014-19 contains a range of objectives and policies that aim to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Area. The Plan is a material consideration in the planning process and provides a framework to help guide local authorities in fulfilling their statutory duty, informing the development of local planning policy and influencing development control decisions. I consider that the proposal conflicts with the following objectives and policies:

1. Objective L1: Conserve and enhance the AONB and the character and quality of its distinctive landscapes and associated features: - L1a: Conserve and enhance landscape character and quality and promote the use of landscape and seascape character assessment to shape decisions affecting the AONB - L1c: Conserve and enhance the Special Qualities of the AONB such as tranquillity and remoteness, wildness and dark skies

2. Objective L2: Conserve and enhance the AONB by removing, avoiding and reducing intrusive and degrading features: - L2a: Avoid and reduce the cumulative impacts of change that erodes landscape character and quality - L2c: Remove, avoid and reduce intrusive and degrading features to restore and enhance landscape character and quality

3. Objective PH1: Support sustainable development that conserves and enhances the Special Qualities of the AONB: - PH1a: Ensure that any necessary development affecting the AONB is sensitively sited and designed and conserves and enhances local character - PH1g: Conserve and enhance the AONB’s undeveloped rural character, panoramic views, tranquillity, remoteness and wildness

4. Objective PH2: Impacts of development and land use damaging to the AONB’s Special Qualities are avoided and reduced: - PH2b: Protect the quality of uninterrupted panoramic views into, within and out of the AONB

Page 52

As you will be aware, section 115 of the National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) states that: “Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads.” Given my observations regarding the foreseeable effects of these applications on the interests of Dorset AONB, it is my recommendation that the applications be refused.

8.11 Bincombe Parish Council (Adjacent Parish) – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.12 DCP Trees Officer – There are trees along the southern boundary as well as a group close to the eastern boundary. The position of the development is too close to the group of trees on / close to the eastern boundary and would no doubt lead to their loss.

Also, there is no space allowed for the landscaping of the northern boundary which would be required between the site and the garden centre to the north.

Required: A tree survey showing what trees are to be retained / removed as well as a landscape scheme for the site on the submission of an application in the future.

The proposal does appear to be of a size not compatible with the size of the site and too high being within the southern fringe of the AONB.

8.13 DCP Housing Enabling Team – There are currently over 1600 households on the Weymouth and Portland Housing Register.

This demonstrates that there is a high level of housing need in the Weymouth and Portland area. The greatest demand is for smaller homes.

This is an outline application which seeks to erect 36 flats on land adjacent to Goulds Garden Centre, Littlemoor Road, Weymouth. The site has previously been used for the storage of caravans but is now unoccupied.

In the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015 Policy HOUS 1 relates to the provision of affordable housing and states that where open market housing is proposed affordable housing will be required. To comply with policy Hous 1 then 35% of the units should be affordable homes. Of the affordable homes a minimum of 70% should be for rent and 30% intermediate. The affordable homes will be secured though a S106 agreement.

Page 53 There is a high level housing need in the borough of Weymouth and Portland. In order to comply with Hous 1 35% of the homes developed on this site should be affordable.

8.14 DCP Parks and Open Spaces – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.15 DCP Urban Design Officer - I have serious concerns about this proposal in terms of the scale of development proposed and likely impact on the AONB and character of the area. Whilst the application is an outline with only access to be agreed I do not consider the illustrative layout and visualisation adequately demonstrate that 36 flats could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site.

In the appeal decision APP/P1235/A/06/2024256 which allowed 5 dwellings (since lapsed) the inspector specifically commented that ‘the particular circumstances of this site within the AONB do justify a density well below the national indicative minimum’ therefore the comments of the Senior Landscape Officer will be an important consideration.

He also commented that ‘ I consider that the impact of a larger number of modest dwellings, subject to careful attention to siting, design, size (particularly height) and landscaping could be significantly less than the extant permission’ (3 dwellings). In the context of this part of Littlemoor Road close to Preston and the comments from the Inspector regarding ‘modest’ dwellings and careful attention to size in relation to height and landscaping I do not consider that 3 large blocks of 4 storey development is appropriate for this site. Development on the northern side of Littlemoor Road is predominantly two storey, with the occasional bungalow. The development to the south at Pemberley has some 21/2 storey dwellings however the ground level is set down below the level of Littlemoor Road. The caravan sales area is in a prominent location at a slightly higher level than the road, with a bungalow on the western boundary therefore 4 storey development would appear totally at odds with the prevailing character. Policy ENV10 requires schemes to be informed by the character of the site and surrounding area which I do not consider this proposal has.

In addition, the site plan doesn’t accurately show existing trees or landscape features within or bounding the site (i.e. canopy spread/root protection zone) which might impact on the developable area. The existing landscaped frontage along Littlemoor Road needs to be retained and reinforced and sufficient space provided within the layout for this without having an adverse impact on the southerly aspect of any built form. Within the illustrative layout no allowance has been made for any landscaping along the northern boundary. Whilst only illustrative the extensive amount of uninterrupted hard surfacing devoted to parking hard up to the northern boundary is unacceptable and a further indication of the over development of the site.

Page 54 To ensure any development sits comfortably within the AONB setting and has regard to the character of area it will need to be well landscaped. The Inspector commented that scheme required ‘significant landscaping to absorb the buildings as part of a well designed scheme’ rather than the buildings being the prominent element. It is acknowledged that the development would screen the utilitarian buildings of the garden centre to the north, however the inappropriate scale proposed is likely to be in itself detrimental to the AONB.

The Design and Access statement talks about extensive landscaping between the blocks however this may not be achievable with the level of development proposed once significant boundary landscaping has been provided along with the sitting out areas, bin stores, cycle parking and drying areas required by policy ENV 11.

Therefore all these issues indicate that a proposal for 36 flats is not achievable on the site and that the proposal is overdevelopment.

8.16 In response to the concerns raised amended plans were submitted which reduced the scale of the proposal from up to 36 flats to up to 24 flats. This meant the indicative plans went from a four storey proposal to two storey. The buildings were also moved slightly in response to concerns over existing trees on the site and a water main crossing the site. The access was also relocated in order to provide visibility splays and a more appropriate design. The application was then re-consulted on and the following comments were made in response to the amended plans:

8.17 Dorset Police Crime Prevention - I have reviewed the amended plans for the above proposed development and wish to make the following comments:

My main concern is in relation to the car parking at the rear of the premises. From looking at the plans – Perspective Views 4 and 5 the area is only covered by a couple of lighting bollards. This area also houses the cycle and bin storage areas. Rear parking areas are discouraged as they are often unlit which can raise the fear of crime and they can also be an area of concealment which can encourage anti-social behaviour. I appreciate that the area is overlooked by the flats and that there will be some lighting from within the flats, however, this cannot be relied on so I would recommend more lighting within this car park.

8.18 Natural England – The proposed amendments to the original application are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.

8.19 DCC Highways – I note that the layout has been altered such that the access has been relocated to ensure adequate visibility and turning within the site for larger vehicles can be provided. However, I now that note that due to the depiction of the highway fronting the site being a simple inaccurate sketch and

Page 55 not based on survey or even an O.S. plan the two laybys and build out on the south side of the service road are not shown. Whilst I appreciate this is an outline application the box for “access” to be considered in full was selected. Pedestrians entering or leaving Block 3 being directed across the layby and service road at the frontage between any parked vehicles which is obviously an unacceptable hazard. The layby cannot be reduced in length as it is needed and was part of the agreed main road improvements, so therefore the pedestrian access will need to be diverted to the nearby build-out. Kerbs will need to dropped both sides to be flush with the carriageway and provided with tactile paving to meet the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010. This applies to all the pedestrian access points.

Also the hatching used for the visibility splay obscures the highway verge and that part of the access crossing is such that the precise of detail of what is being proposed is unclear as the extents of the bellmouth which in any event needs checking to ensure the expected large vehicles such removals lorries and refuse lorries can enter and leave the site without any overhang (including mirrors) of the footway opposite.

8.20 Dorset AONB Partnership - I have reviewed the revised outline plans. I consider that the proposal to amend the design to three blocks with a reduced height of two storeys would overcome my previous concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site. Being an outline application, I note that the specific details of the design may be amended. I would like to encourage the applicant to maintain the outlined approach to the use of high quality materials, including timber, natural stone and anthracite coloured trim, as these materials are considered to be visually recessive. The applicant should also be encouraged to maintain their approach to landscaping, including the use of a green roof, the planting of native trees along the northern boundary and the provision of green areas surrounding the individual blocks.

8.21 Wessex Water - Further to our previous comments dated 24/5/18, the latest plans submitted clearly indicate the line of the water main and 6m offset - we are satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that location of the building does not conflict with the statutory easement for the water main.

The proposed site plan 02 Rev B indicates a pond excavation within the water main exclusion zone. Any reduction in ground levels in close proximity to a pressurised 600mm water main is not permitted. This is a strategic trunk main and there must be no changes in levels within 6m either side of the water main.

We can agree to the removal of our holding objection to the layout, but advise the applicant that the construction of a pond feature for landscape or attenuation purposes will not be permitted within the statutory easement.

Proposed surface water drainage

Page 56 The developer has submitted a Conceptual Surface Water Strategy Report which proposes Suds features with exceedance flows discharged to the 225mm public surface water sewer in Littlemore Road.  A connection to the public surface water sewer will be considered where discharge to local land drainage systems is proven unviable.  A maximum discharge rate of up to 5 l/s can be accepted in to the surface water sewer, subject to application and satisfactory arrangements for flow control. The maximum discharge rate from this site is to be agreed with the LLFA and may be set lower.  Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge either directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system.

8.22 DCC Flood Risk Management Team - Following our response and (Holding) Objection of 17/08/2018 (our ref: PLN17-118/2) the following additional documents have been submitted and reviewed;  Conceptual Surface Water Strategy Report - as compiled by Dr R.Saunders / Innervision Design Ltd, dated Sept 2018.  Site Plan / Amended - drawn by A1 Plans, ref: 02 Rev B.

These additional documents have been reviewed in conjunction with the further response provided by Wessex Water (WW), dated 10/10/2018, within which in- principle agreement to the proposed (exceedance) outfall to an existing 225mm surface water sewer aligned beneath Littlemoor Road is confirmed.

On this basis, we (DCC FRM) accept that the proposed conceptual strategy of surface water management, based upon a scheme of sedum (green) roofing, rain gardens & permeable paving with an overflow to a surface water sewer, is both viable and deliverable. Equally, the in-principle agreement offered by WW to a connection and 5l/s discharge rate offers a viable contingency should the proposed conceptual strategy, as outlined within the supporting Innervision Design Ltd document, not be presented or accepted with respect to subsequent detailed design and discharge of requested planning conditions. Whilst the documents presented outline an acceptable conceptual arrangement we retain some concern with regard to the (detailed) design that has been presented in support of these Outline proposals, specifically relating to the storage offered by the proposed water garden elements.

Following the submission of the additional information & clarification listed above, DCC FRM withdraw our previous (Holding) Objection, subject to the attachment of the following two pre-commencement conditions to any decision granted;

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and including clarification of how surface water is to be managed during construction phases, has been submitted to, and approved in

Page 57 writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed. REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding & associated nuisance.

No development shall take place until details of maintenance & management of both the surface water sustainable drainage scheme and adjacent receiving system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding.

Notes to the LPA / Applicant; Finalised and detailed proposals will need to be supplied and approved in respect of subsequent submissions and discharge of the requested pre-commencement conditions, relevant to the surface water management scheme. Any detailed design supplied with regard to the above conditions must demonstrate that the recommendations of the NPPF and best practice are fully complied with, and critically that no off-site worsening will result.

8.23 In response to the comments made by Wessex Water the pond feature was removed from the plans. In response to DCC Highways an amended plan was submitted and the following comments were made:

8.24 DCC Highways - The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION subject to the following conditions:

Turning and parking construction as submitted 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.

Vehicle access construction Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 15 metres of the vehicle access, measured from the rear edge of the highway (excluding the vehicle crossing – see the Informative Note below), must be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Page 58

Reason: To ensure that a suitably surfaced and constructed access to the site is provided that prevents loose material being dragged and/or deposited onto the adjacent carriageway causing a safety hazard.

Surface water drainage Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised provision must be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.

Reason: To ensure that the site is properly drained and that surface water does not flow onto the highway.

Visibility splays as shown Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number 15 Rev B must be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.60 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas must thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

Reason: To ensure that a vehicle can see or be seen when exiting the access.

Grampian condition Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the following works must have been constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority:

Provision and construction and reinstatement of two opposing pedestrian/wheelchair crossings on the service road fronting the development prior to first occupation as shown on Drawing Number 15 Rev B.

Reason: These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite for allowing the development to proceed, providing the necessary highway infrastructure improvements to mitigate the likely impact of the proposal.

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 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.

Page 59 8.25 All full consultee responses and representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com

9. REPRESENTATIONS:

9.1 Seven third party responses were received objecting to the application, the reasons for which are summarised below:

 Very intrusive, dominating the area  Four storey high is excessive  Intrusive and overbearing structure  Blocks of flats would be out of keeping with the area  Proposed blocks are close to the front of the site in contrast to the bungalows which are well back from the road  Site is within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty within which such a dense development would seem most unsuitable  Not enough parking provided which would impact on wider area  Impact on skyline due to the height of the buildings  Highway safety – existing road network struggles with existing levels of traffic  Pressure on public services of further residential development  External design and appearance would be utilitarian and unattractive  Impact on neighbouring properties as four storey blocks on raised land will tower above the adjacent bungalows resulting in loss of light and reduced value  Location of car park will give rise to noise and disturbance  Significant water main that runs through the development area  Loss of light through overshadowing impacting on the retailing of plants by the garden centre

9.2 Comments were also made regarding a covenant on the site which requires the developer to construct an access road to the rear of their premises when any development of the site takes places however this is considered a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.

9.3 Amended plans were received reducing the scale of the proposal alongside other changes. The plans were re-consulted on and three third party responses were received. Two of which considered the amendments to result in a great improvement. One third party response still raised concerns due to impacts on highway safety as summarised below:

 The one way access road, which this development is proposing to use, is already severely congested with parked cars and heavy traffic which is already causing congestion. The additional traffic and parking this development will generate will only add to the current problem.

Page 60 10. PLANNING ISSUES:

 Principle of development  Visual Amenity  Residential Amenity  Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty  Highway Safety  Drainage  Affordable Housing  Community Infrastructure Levy

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of Development

In terms of the principal of the development the sites lies within the defined development boundary for Weymouth. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. Given the location of the site inside the DDB with good access to amenities and in close proximity to the local plan allocation LITT 1, the principle of the application is acceptable. The development will also further assist in the lack of five year housing supply, subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Councils have 4.94 years of supply across the local plan area. This means that para 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies for the supply of housing, including Policy SUS 2, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Where a 'relevant policy' such as SUS 2 is considered to be 'out-of-date', Para 11 of the NPPF is also engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted unless: i) the application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or ii) 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

The lack of a 5 year supply, even if the supply is only marginally below 5 years, means that less weight has to be given to policies such as Policy SUS 2 in decision-making. The local plan inspector's comments, which raised concerns about the marginal nature of the council's housing land supply, remain just as relevant to decision-making, now the supply has slipped below 5 years. This

Page 61 application site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Weymouth in the adopted local plan and would be seen in the wider context of the surrounding development. The site was previously used to run a caravan sales business and then caravan storage associated with the business but is no longer required. The principle of the use of the site as residential has previously been established with planning permission granted for 3 dwellings in 2004 and 5 dwellings at appeal in 2007 which was subsequently renewed in 2009 and 2012 although neither were ever implemented. Based on the above and the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply, and subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan, the proposal in principle is considered acceptable.

11.2 Visual Amenity

The original proposal consisted of the erection of up to 36 flats. The application is for outline permission with only access to be agreed with all other matters reserved. The submission included indicative plans showing 3 four storey high blocks of flats. Although the plans were indicative it was considered that 36 flats could not be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. The DCP Urban Design Officer was consulted on the application and considered that the site is in a prominent location at a slightly higher level than the road, with a bungalow on the western boundary therefore four storey development would appear at odds with the prevailing character. In response to the concerns raised the proposal was amended to the erection of up to 24 flats and indicative plans showing the proposed to be two storey in height. This reduction in scale to two storey is considered to reflect the existing character of the area and the proposed units would be viewed in the context of the buildings of the garden centre to the rear when viewed from the road. A condition would be placed on any approval to ensure the proposal would not be over two storey high.

Concerns were also raised in relation to landscaping, in response to this an amended site plan was provided which showed revised landscaping details with new tree planting along the north boundary of the site, with the existing trees retained along the east boundary and space for planting in between the blocks to provide softening. However at this stage the application is for outline permission and given all of the above there is nothing to suggest at this outline stage that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the area. Further consideration would have to be given at reserved matters stage in relation to the more detailed design of the proposal and materials pallet required.

11.3 Residential Amenity

The proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties. Concerns regarding loss of light and an overbearing nature of the proposal were initially raised to the originally proposed which consisted of up to 36 flats and indicative plans showing

Page 62 the units being four storey high. The proposal was amended to consist of the erection of up to 24 flats and indicative plans show the proposal to be two storey high. An approval granted would be conditioned to restrict the height of the proposal to two storey. The relationship of the site with neighbouring properties, with the proposal being separated from the properties to the south by the A353 and the access Road. The garden centre to the north being separated by the parking of the proposal and the existing trees. The Aquatic Centre would be separated by the no building strip, easement area from the proposal and the dwellings to the east would also be separated by the existing trees. These separations alongside the two storey height of the proposal means there is nothing to suggest at this outline stage that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

In terms of the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed flats, the application is for outline consent but indicative plans have been submitted demonstrating how the proposed flats could be arranged. Policy ENV 12 states that new housing should met and where possible exceed appropriate space standards and this would appear to be the case although this would need to be further considered at the reserved matters stage. As the proposal is for flats policy HOUS 4 of the local plan is also applicable, the reduction in the scheme from 36 to 24 means the proposal is not considered to result in a cramped form of development with adequate spacing between the blocks and space for parking to the rear. The reduction in height of the proposal which would be secured through a condition on any approval granted also means that the development would be more compatible with the character of the area although this will depend on the design of the proposals which will form part of the reserved matters application. The final criteria of policy HOUS 4 requires sufficient amenity space is provided for future occupiers. Again the plans are indicative so this would need to be further considered at reserved matters stage but the indicative drawings do show a balcony for each flat and although the site plan does not show substantial outside amenity space for the units the easement strip does provide some and the site is located within the DDB for Weymouth.

11.4 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

The application site is located within an area of outstanding natural beauty, the proposal originally involved the erection of up to 36 flats with the indicative plans showing these being accommodated over four storeys. The Dorset AONB Landscape Officer considered that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment, exceeding the capacity of the site and result in an undesirable form of urbanisation within the AONB. Amended plans were submitted reducing the proposed to up to 24 flats and with indicative plans showing the proposal to be two storey in height. The Dorset AONB Landscape Officer was consulted on the amendments made and considered that the changes made overcome the concerns previously raised regarding overdevelopment of the site. Any approval granted would be conditioned to a maximum height of two storey which would

Page 63 ensure that a development can be achieved which would not harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

11.5 Highway Safety

The proposed units would be accessed off Littlemoor Road service road off Littlemoor Road with parking provided to the rear of the site behind the proposed units. Concerns have been raised regarding the level of parking provision provided for the units not being sufficient and the impact of this on the existing congestion in the local area. DCC Highways were consulted on the application and raised concerns due to the proposed access being too close to the adjacent boundary restricting visibility and that the ‘L’ shaped access road results in there being no turning for large vehicles. Further concerns were also raised regarding pedestrians entering or leaving the proposed block 3 would be directed across the layby and service road at the frontage between any parked vehicles which is an unacceptable hazard and the layby cannot be reduced in length. Therefore the pedestrian access would be required to be diverted to the nearby build out, kerbs would need to be dropped both sides to be flush with the carriageway and provided with tactile paving to the meet the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010. In response to these comments an amended plan access plan was submitted, drawing number 02 Rev B, which addressed all the concerns raised and DCC Highways held no objection subject to conditions for turning and parking construction, vehicle access construction, surface water drainage, visibility splays as shown and a condition for the pedestrian/wheelchair crossings which would be placed on any approval granted.

11.6 Drainage

A holding objection was initially placed on the application by the Flood Risk Management team pending the supply and approval of a conceptual strategy of surface water management. In response to the holding objection a conceptual surface water strategy report and amended site plan were submitted. The DCC Flood Risk Management Team considered that the proposed conceptual strategy of surface water management, based upon a scheme of sedum (green) roofing, rain gardens and permeable paving with an overflow to a surface water sewer would be both viable and deliverable. Equally, the in-principle agreement offered by Wessex Water to a connection and 5l/s discharge rate offers a viable contingency should the proposed conceptual strategy not be presented or accepted with respect to subsequent detailed design. Therefore the holding objection of the DCC Flood Risk Team was withdrawn subject to conditions and it was considered that an acceptable scheme for surface water management can be achieved for the site.

11.7 Affordable Housing

Page 64 Policy HOUS 1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the re-instatement of a Written Ministerial Statement from 28 November 2014. National planning policy and national guidance establish thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions will normally be sought on sites of 6 units or more inside designated rural areas. As this site exceeds this threshold an affordable housing contribution is required. The applicants are in the process of entering into a legal agreement to secure this on site provision of 8 units with a financial contribution for the remainder in line with the requirement in national policy.

11.8 Community Infrastructure Levy

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 square metre CIL rate.

The development proposal is CIL liable.

A levy is not raised because the proposal is for an outline planning permission and full details are unknown at this stage.

 CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

12.1 The outline application involves the erection of up to 24 flats and the access with all other matters reserved. The site is located within the defined development boundary for Weymouth and planning permission has previously been granted for residential on the site and is therefore in accordance with Local Plan policy SUS 2. It is also considered acceptable in relation to visual amenity, residential amenity, the AONB, drainage and highway safety.

 RECOMMENDATION:

1. Before any development is commenced details of 'reserved matters' (that is any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application and which concern the layout, scale, appearance, access or landscaping) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their subsequent approval.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

2. Application for approval of any 'reserved matter' must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Page 65

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

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

Location Plan – Rev B Access Site Plan – Drawing Number 15 Rev B

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

5. No development shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and including clarification of how surface water is to be managed during construction phases, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding & associated nuisance.

6. No development shall take place until details of maintenance & management of both the surface water sustainable drainage scheme and adjacent receiving system have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding.

7. 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.

Page 66

REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

8. Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 15 metres of the vehicle access, measured from the rear edge of the highway (excluding the vehicle crossing – see the Highways Informative Note), must be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that a suitably surfaced and constructed access to the site is provided that prevents loose material being dragged and/or deposited onto the adjacent carriageway causing a safety hazard.

9. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised provision must be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.

REASON: To ensure that the site is properly drained and that surface water does not flow onto the highway.

10. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number 15 Rev B must be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.60 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas must thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

REASON: To ensure that a vehicle can see or be seen when exiting the access.

11. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the construction of two opposing pedestrian/wheelchair crossing on the service road which fronts the development as shown on drawing number 15 Rev B must have been constructed to the specification of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained as such.

REASON: These specified works are seen as a pre-requisite for allowing the development to proceed, providing the necessary highway infrastructure improvements to mitigate the likely impact of the proposal.

12. The development hereby approved shall not exceed two storeys in height.

REASON: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is sympathetic to its locality.

Page 67 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00699/FUL

APPLICATION SITE : Site Q Osprey Quay, Hamm Beach Road, Portland

PROPOSAL: Erection of Class A1 retail store, car parking, landscaping, servicing, revised access and associated works

APPLICANT: Lidl UK GmbH

CASE OFFICER: Emma Telford

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Kimber and Cllr West

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve subject to conditions

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The application site is located at the northern edge of Portland, close to the causeway which links to Weymouth. The site is bounded to the north, west and south-west by highway infrastructure including Hamm Beach Road to the north and Portland Beach Road to the south-west. The site is currently vacant, to the south-east is an area of further vacant land and an area used for parking and storage associated with the sailing academy. The sailing academy lies to the north-east.

1.2 The application site is located within the defined development boundary for Portland. It is also within the PORT 1 allocation and is located within flood zones 2 and 3.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 The proposal involves the erection of a Class A1 food store, with a total of 114 car parking spaces with associated landscaping and access arrangements. The proposed food store would be accessed of Hamm Beach Road, with the food store located in the southern corner of the site. The proposed store is shown as being for Lidl, who are the applicants and the proposed store would be contemporary in design.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

Application No. Proposal Decision Decision Date WP/13/00047/OUT Erection of buildings (floorspace Approved 11/10/2013 up to 13,722 sqm GFA) for employment use (Use Classes

Page 69 B1, B2 and B8) and associated access

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

4.1 National Planning policy Framework (NPPF) 2018

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

2. Achieving sustainable development 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 7. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 9. Promoting sustainable transport 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Decision-making:

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision- makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

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

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

• Int1. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development • Env1. Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest • Env2. Wildlife and Habitats • Env5. Flood Risk • Env10. The Landscape and Townscape Setting • Env11. The Pattern of Streets and Spaces • Env12. The Design and Positioning of Buildings • Env14. Shop Fronts and Advertisements • Env16. Amenity • Sus1. The Level of Economic and Housing Growth • Sus2. Distribution of Development

Page 70 • Econ3. Protection of Other Employment Sites • Econ4. Retail and Town Centre Development • Com7. Creating a Safe and Efficient transport Network • Com9. Parking Standards in New Development • Com10. The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure • Port1. Osprey Quay

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

5.1 Supplementary Planning Documents

• Urban Design (2002) • Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013 • DCC Parking standards guidance

6. HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

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

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:

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

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

This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a food store, the proposal includes the provision of 8 disabled users parking spaces and 8 parent and child car parking spaces adjacent to the store.

8. CONSULTATIONS:

Page 71

8.1 Wessex Water – We have no objection to the proposed development. However, we offer the following important points of note:

Existing Sewerage Infrastructure The site is crossed by a 750mm strategic surface water sewer and a 150mm public foul sewer. The sewers must be accurately located and marked on site. There must be no building within a minimum 3m either side of the sewer (for the 750mm pipe this would be 3.375m from the centreline of the pipe). We are satisfied that the proposed site layout observes the statutory easements and gives sufficient clearance and access to the public sewers. We request that we are re-consulted on any ‘future expansion’ plans in the vicinity of the sewers.

Proposed Sewerage The site shall be served by separate systems of drainage

Foul Drainage • A connection to the 150mm public foul sewer crossing the site can be agreed for foul flows. Point of connection to be agreed on application. For more information refer to Wessex Water’s guidance notes ‘DEV011G – Section 104 Sewer Adoption’ and ‘DEV016G - Sewer Connections’.

Surface Water Drainage • The drainage strategy (Jubb October 2018) proposes a free discharge to the 750mm public surface water sewer which outfalls to the harbour. The strategy states that the receiving sewers have been designed to accommodate flows from this site for the 1 in 30 year event with a surcharged outfall at Mean High Water Spring level. This strategy is acceptable to us. • No surface water connections to the public foul sewer system. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge either directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system. • Any redundant on site sewers will require sealing at the point of connection to the public system.

Water Supply Our records indicate that there is existing water apparatus in close proximity of the site. Where apparatus lies within the site boundary the location should be accurately marked on site. There must be no building or structure within 3m and Wessex Water will require unrestricted access to maintain and repair. Subject to application and engineering agreement it may be possible to divert or remove the apparatus.at the developer’s cost. Please refer to our guidance note DEV002G and our website http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/Developers/Supply/Building-near- a-water-mains/ for further guidance and contacts.

A water supply can be made available from the local network. The point of connection will be agreed upon application.

Page 72

8.2 Environment Agency – We have no objection to the proposed development subject to the following conditions and informatives being included in any planning permission granted.

Flood Risk Sequential Test The development may be required to pass the Sequential Test as required by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its associated Practice Guidance. ( http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood- risk-and-coastal-change/applying-the-sequential-test-to-individual-planning- applications/ .

The applicant should agree a Sequential Test position with the Local Planning Authority prior to committing further resources into the proposal.

Flood Risk Assessment The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (Jubb Consulting Engineers Limited, V4, dated 23 August 2018) in support of the application.

It sets out, in the conclusions on page 11, the proposed flood mitigation measures, to include minimum site ground levels of 3.7m AOD and a finished floor level set a minimum of 300mm higher (minimum of 4.0m AOD).

The proposed site plan indicates the finished floor level will be set at 4.41m AOD, but the site plan does not indicate proposed minimum site ground levels.

The Flood Risk Assessment correctly describes, on page 9, the importance of setting ground levels across the site of the proposed development such that an overland conveyance route will be maintained ‘to ensure that in the extremely unlikely event of a failure of both the primary and secondary defences, flood water can be evacuated from the site’, i.e. toward Portland Harbour. Moreover, ‘external levels will be designed to route exceedance flows around the building from the flood bund and away from the building on the northern side’.

The conditions requested include: - The provision of a plan showing final site ground levels and finished floor level in accordance with the FRA - Flood Warning and emergency evacuation procedure notices to be erected - The provision of a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site - The provision of a verification report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy - The provision of a monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination

Page 73 - If during development contamination not previously identified is found - No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted without written consent - Piling, deep foundations and other types of intrusive groundworks using penetrative methods shall not be carried out without written consent - A scheme for managing any borehole installed

8.3 Dorset Police Crime Prevention – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.4 WPA Consultants – The Phase 1 Report by Ruddlesden Geotechnical, dated December 2017, generally complies with current technical guidance. Based on information included in the report, WPA requires that an intrusive site investigation and risk assessment is undertaken for the site. This, to characterise the site and assess risks from existing ground conditions to human health and controlled water receptors.

In conclusion : WPA will not object to the grant of planning permission providing that contaminated land planning conditions are applied. This is to ensure that potential contaminated land risks are properly investigated, assessed and managed in accordance with current guidance, and the site is redeveloped in a safe manner and it is suitable for the intended end use in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 .

WPA recommends that the contaminated land planning condition include requirements for: (a) a 'desk study' report documenting the site history; (b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site, and incorporating a ‘conceptual model’ of all potential pollutant linkages, detailing the identified sources, pathways and receptors and basis of risk assessment; (c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed; (d) a Verification/Validation report should remediation works be required for the site, to demonstrate that remediation works have been incorporated in the development in compliance with the agreed requirements.

Based on information provided, the Phase 1 Report complies with Part (a) of the recommended contaminated land planning condition. For the site investigation works, WPA recommends that a detailed investigation strategy is submitted to the LPA prior to undertaken the intrusive site works. This is in order to avoid disagreements over methodology at a later stage. WPA stresses that all site investigation works should comply with current guidance including BS 5930:2015BS, 10175:2011+A2:2017 and BS 8576:2013, BS 8485:2015 and CIRIA C665 for ground gas and hydrocarbon vapours monitoring and risk assessment. WPA notes that for the TPH testing, the testing should include speciated aliphatic and aromatic carbon chains.

Page 74 An Unexpected Contamination Condition should also be applied to any permission granted.

8.5 Maritime and Coastguard Agency – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.6 Streetscene Manager – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.7 Parks and Open Spaces – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.8 Portland Town Council – The Portland Town Council support this application. However, it requests a robust and sustainable public transport plan be put in place prior to development in accordance with policy 3.4.5 of the supporting documents Travel Plan which must include a bus stop serving both sides of the site in accordance with the Portland Town Council sustainable transport policy.

8.9 DCC Highways – The County Highway Authority has no objection in principle subject to an acceptable amended plan being submitted showing the following revisions upon receipt of which final observations will be provided:

Modify the access bell-mouth for tactiles and dropped kerbs for a wheel chair and pram crossing point so as to meet the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010.

Provide a secure shelter storage for staff cycles (preferably within the building to avoid the corrosive marine environment) must be provided to promote sustainable transport.

8.10 DCC Planning Obligations Manager – I have no objection to this application. This is without prejudice to any other DCC observations.

8.11 DCC Flood Risk Management Team – We have reviewed the application and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) provided by the applicant, however no Drainage Strategy appears to have been submitted.

We are therefore unable to comment in respect of the application since no information has been provided as to how this site will be drained post development. We must therefore recommend a Holding Objection until an outline strategy is presented.

The only paragraph relevant to drainage matters, within the FRA is as follows: “7.1.7 The estate drainage was designed to accommodate flows from the future development on Plot Q. The existing surface water drainage system on the site is adequate to accommodate existing flows. As the hardstanding areas do not

Page 75 exceed those anticipated there will be no increase in flows and thus the existing system will remain sufficient.”

No evidence has been provided to substantiate the above statement. For instance, no confirmation or correspondence with Wessex Water (WW) regarding the existing drainage system has been submitted, nor have any indicative drainage layouts, or likely pre- and post-development runoff rates. As a minimum, we will need to see in-principle agreement from Wessex Water that they will accept drainage from this brownfield site, before we look to recommend conditions. Ideally, documentation (such as modelling) should be provided which shows what allowance was made for runoff from this site following strategic development of the drainage system at this location.

As far as we are aware this application forms a standalone permission, any relevant evidence from previous consideration(s) of Surface Water (SW) management at this site or wider locale, must be extracted and submitted as part of this application for us to consider.

We note that the site is free from pluvial flood risk, but is well within flood zones 2 & 3. You may therefore need / want to consult with the Environment Agency (EA) over tidal flood risk and sequential test / exception test issues, if not already addressed through your local plan.

8.12 DCC Natural Environment Team – We have the following comments to make:

- The 4 metre buffer to the SNCI is mitigating impacts on the surrounding SNCI and therefore details of this should be included in Section E. Additional areas of grassland creation can remain in Section G. - We welcome the requirement of a conditioned Management Plan to capture the creation, management, aftercare and monitoring of the SNCI buffer and additional coastal grassland areas within the development site. As the area of SNCI adjacent to the development represents about one third of the total SNCI area, it would be appropriate if the Management Plan addressed the whole Osprey Quay SNCI (in consultation with DWT/NET) to ensure habitat creation/ management is set within the context of the whole site. Can you confirm if any seed harvesting has been undertaken on the SNCI? - We would prefer to see native coastal plants used in seeding/planting only and in keeping with adjacent SNCI rather than what is proposed in the landscape planting which may cause a longer term management issues and some plants such as yellow-horned poppy, sea kale, viper’s bugloss etc can provide a good display of colour and structure with wildlife value. - In terms of additional mitigation/enhancement some simple interpretation (produced in consultation with DWT/NET) of the SNCI and additional grassland/planting by parking/entrance area would be really valuable for people visiting the new store.

Page 76 - Are there any opportunities for the new building to have some integrated wild life enhancement such as bird boxes, bee bricks?

8.13 DCP Spatial Policy – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.14 DCP Technical Services – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.15 DCP Landscape Officer – The application site is located at the northern entrance to the Osprey Quay Business Park, which contains a mixture of medium and large scale marine industry or commercial buildings. The Weymouth and Portland National Sailing Academy is located to the immediate east of the site and to immediate south is an area of boat and motorhome storage. The application site is in a prominent position at the southern extent of the Causeway but is partially screened by a gabion bund with maritime planting. The bund is approximately 2m high. The application site previously contained large fuel storage tanks associated with the former naval base and navy air station. The tanks have been dismantled and the site currently contains made-ground.

Given the nature and scale of existing buildings within the Osprey Quay Business Park, I do not anticipate that the proposed retail unit and associated car-parking will have significant impacts upon the local landscape character or visual amenity. There are popular views towards Weymouth from elevated land to the south (New Ground and Verne Common Road). However, in these views (and in views from closer proximity) the retail building will be seen in the context of the other marine buildings to the south.

I have no objection to this scheme and if you are mindful to approve this application, I recommend the following condition:

Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, full details of soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of soft landscape works shall be in accordance with the National Plant Specification and include: - Plant names (Latin and common) - Quantities of each species proposed - Sizes of each species proposed - Locations of each species proposed

If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant, that tree/plant or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective) another tree/plant of the same species and size

Page 77 as that originally planted shall be replanted in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.

Reason: Landscaping is considered important in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenity of the locality.

8.16 In response to the comments made by DCC Highways amended plans were received and in response to DCC Flood Risk Team a Drainage Strategy was submitted, both were re-consulted and the following further comments were made.

8.17 Further DCC Highways comments – The County Highway Authority has no objection subject to the following conditions:

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plan AD 110 C 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.

Before the development is occupied or utilised the cycle parking facilities shown on Drawing Number AD 110 C must have been constructed. Thereafter, these must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper construction of the parking facilities and to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.

8.18 Further DCC Flood Risk Management Team - As per other Osprey Quay redevelopment proposals, this site is well within the theoretical, albeit defended, Flood Zone 3 tidal flood extent, according to Environment Agency (EA) mapping. Tidal flooding is the main source of flood risk at this site. The Local Planning Authority (LPA), in conjunction with the EA (as the relevant statutory consultee for tidal flooding) should have or will need to satisfy themselves that the proposals satisfy the government’s national planning policies (NPPF) concerning the sequential and exceptions test(s). The site is at little to no risk of flooding from local sources.

Regardless of prevailing risk, any development has the potential to exacerbate or create flood risk if runoff is not appropriately considered and managed as evidenced by a substantiated SW strategy. Ordinarily therefore, and in keeping with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), all major development proposals must take due consideration of SW water

Page 78 management and should offer a drainage strategy that does not create or exacerbate off site worsening and should mitigate flood risk to the site.

To this end, and following our previous objection, we note that the applicant has submitted the following documentation: - Drawing: Location Plan – Portland Beach Road, Weymouth – One Design Architectural Services – Oct 2017 – Ref No: 16047-AD100 - Drawing: Proposed Roof Plan – Portland Beach Road, Weymouth – One Design Architectural Services – Oct 2017 – Ref No: 16047-AD112 - Drawing: Site Plan – Portland Beach Road, Weymouth – One Design Architectural Services – Rev B (27.02.2018) – Ref No: 16047-AD110

- Drawing: Proposed Site Finishes – Portland Beach Road, Weymouth – One Design Architectural Services – Rev B (01.03.2018) – Ref No: 16047-AD115 - Drawing: Proposed Elevations – Portland Beach Road, Weymouth – One Design Architectural Services – Rev B (05.12.2017) – Ref No: 16047-AD113 - Flood Risk Assessment (FRA): Plot Q, Osprey Quay – Jubb Consulting Engineers Ltd. – Ver. 4 (23/08/18) – Ref No: 17214 - Design & Access Statement: Proposed new LIDL Food Store, Hamm Beach Road, Portland – One Design Architectural Services – November 2018 – Not Referenced - Drainage Strategy (DS): Plot Q, Osprey Quay – Jubb Consulting Engineers Ltd. – Ver. 1 (18/10/18) – Ref No: 17214 These documents provide the necessary detail to substantiate the proposed surface water strategy and offer the following clarification:

- The above referenced DS clarifies existing drainage arrangements on this brownfield site. It also provides detail concerning how the site has been used thus far. - Drawing No AD115 makes clear what the breakdown of permeable to impermeable will be post construction and some green areas will be introduced following construction. - The DS explains that the site’s SW will discharge unattenuated into the nearby public SW sewer system, which is owned and maintained by Wessex Water (WW). The applicant has explained that the receiving public system was designed for this purpose and that the site was subject to a higher-level DS. - In addition, WW in their response of the 30/10/2018, have confirmed that the applicant’s drainage arrangements are acceptable to them. - We also note, and are encouraged by, the interceptor structure which is indicated in appendix C of the above DS.

Page 79 - No Ground Investigation (GI) has been provided, however, we accept that given the site’s proximity to sea level infiltration is highly unlikely to function. Ordinarily we would expect to see use of other balancing features i.e. attenuation basins, for water quality and ecological reasons, however, we concede that the site is already developed, provision for water quality has been made in the form of an oil interceptor and additional green areas may offer some ecological benefit.

We therefore have no objection to the application subject to the conditions and informatives at the end of this letter being included on any permission granted. Withdrawal of our objection is conditional upon the Environment Agency’s acceptance of a suitable and fit-for-purpose Flood Risk Assessment since drainage infrastructure is unlikely to function if tidal flood risk has not been appropriately considered and mitigated against.

Two conditions were requested for the provision of a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site and details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme.

8.19 All full consultee responses and representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com

9. REPRESENTATIONS:

9.1 Two hundred and fifty six third party responses were received in response to the application. Three responses were in objection to the application, two hundred and forty six in support and seven comments were made. The comments received in support of the application are summarised below:

• Built on already industrial/business land • Would provide wider variety, choice and competitive pricing • Provide a more affordable option for residents • Provide jobs in the local area • Boost economy of Portland • Not considered to impact on existing retail • Reduced travel to other retail units • Cut air pollution • Reduce volume of traffic travelling to and beyond Weymouth and onto Portland • Accessible location • A further supermarket is required due to increased house building/growing population • Also serve tourists and visitors to the marina and those using the Sailing Academy • Would mean residents would not have to travel to Weymouth for Lidl • Provide a budget supermarket

Page 80 • The store would serve a large area • Would bring life back into Portland • Positive addition to facilities on Portland • No existing food retailer at this location • Will provide a shop to support the marina and boaters • A lot of land available for development at Osprey Quay – contribute to continuing regeneration of the former naval air station by occupying a site that has remained vacant for sometime • Improve the undeveloped area – utilise the land and enhance the surrounding outlook • Assist in the regeneration of the Castletown area • Will make approach to Portland appear less industrial • Road layout at Hamm Beach Road is already in place to facilitate free flow of traffic • No noise or parking problems to residents • Plenty of space for parking • Easy access for delivery lorries with wide road and efficient roundabout • Ideally situated for passing trade • Asset to the community • Healthier choices in groceries

9.2 The concerns raised as part of the comments are summarised below, some of the responses received were in support of the proposal but raised some concerns as well.

• Site is not well connected for pedestrians or for public transport • No regular bus service going through Osprey Quay despite the fact that bus stops are in place • Bus service should be diverted via Osprey Quay • Insufficient cycle parking • Walk to Victoria Square bus stop with shopping is impossible • Signage will be highly intrusive on this highly visible site which will form the new gateway to the Island – warehouse type building • Better located on the eastern side nearer Castle Court where it would be within much easier reach of residents • Development should be set back from the roundabout to provide space for landscaping • Proposal should include a café • Proposal would be detrimental to the National Sailing Academy • Standard Lidl type building not an enhancement architecturally • Only access road to and from the Island for residents any increase in traffic will increase problems for emergency vehicles • View spoiled with too many lights • Site should ideally be reserved for a more maritime-related use • Hedgehogs not mentioned in the Biodiversity Mitigation Plan

Page 81

9.3 Some additional comments were also made in response to the application which are summarised below:

• Free parking needs to be retained on Hamm Beach Road • Petrol station required • No NET certificate of approval • Hedgehogs not mentioned • Requirement for electric charging points for cars

10. PLANNING ISSUES:

• Principle of development • Visual Amenity • Residential Amenity • Highway Safety • Drainage • Biodiversity

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT :

11.1 Principle of Development

The proposed works is for the erection of a Class A1 retail store. The application site lies within the defined development boundary for Portland. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints” . As the proposal is for retail development policy ECON 4 of the local plan is applicable. Policy ECON 4 requires applications for new retail development to undertake a sequential test which was submitted as part of the application.

Carter Jonas were instructed to undertake a retail assessment of the proposal (which is available in full on www.dorsetforyou.com ). The response from Carter Jonas concluded that the proposed Lidl store satisfies the sequential test. The impact on the existing Tesco within the local centre of Easton was considered to be finely balanced however it was not considered that the proposal would seriously undermine the viability of the Tesco resulting in its closure and a consequent significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the Local Centre of Easton as a whole. The cumulative impact of the proposed Lidl and Aldi (application reference WP/18/00489/FUL) at land at junction of Dorchester Road and Mercery Road, Weymouth was also considered. It was concluded that the impact on the centre’s overall vitality and viability cannot be considered as being significantly adverse.

Page 82 Given all of the above the proposal was not considered to lead to significant adverse impacts on existing centres and therefore complies with local plan policy ECON 4. Carter Jonas as part of their response recommended conditions which included limiting the sales area of the store, the ancillary space and storage space as set out in the submitted Planning and Retail Assessment. The prevention of the sub-division of the store into smaller units, a condition for the store to be used as a discount retailer and a condition specifying the types of produce and services that cannot be sold/offered all of which would be placed on any approval granted.

The application site also falls within the local plan allocation PORT 1. The policy requires that land at Osprey Quay is allocated for primarily employment, leisure and ancillary retail uses and residential as part of a mixed use scheme. It also states that any development should be in accordance with the Osprey Quay masterplan. The local plan policy supports some retail development within the Osprey Quay site, the scale of the proposed food store raises questions about whether the proposal would be ancillary to the existing employment and leisure uses. However, the broad definition of employment within the local plan recognises that employment also applies to non B class development which provides direct, on-going local employment opportunities such as tourism and retail. There is also a previous consent for a mixed use scheme on the wider site under the reference 08/00127/FULE which originally included a supermarket although subsequent variations were made resulting in residential development occupying the land consented for retail use. Both the definition in the local plan and historical permission relating to the retail use at Osprey Quay are material planning considerations in the determination of this application and are considered to result in the proposed food store being considered acceptable. This is also considered alongside the large amount of support for the proposal within the local community with two hundred and forty six third party comments received in support and detailing the need for a wider choice of food retailers within Portland.

11.2 Visual Amenity

The application site is located in a prominent position and forms a gateway site due to its location on the approach onto Portland. However it would involve the re-development of the existing vacant, brownfield site. The proposed Lidl food store would be of a contemporary design reflecting the intended purpose of the building and would be viewed in relation to the existing buildings of Osprey Quay. In terms of materials the proposal does follow the standard design approach for other Lidl stores and the materials are clearly shown on the plan AD 113 – Rev B and on any approval a condition would be placed for the materials to be in accordance with that plan. However in response to pre-application discussions on the site the proposal does also include some Portland Stone as a feature element at the proposed entrance to the store reflecting the character of the local

Page 83 area and involves increased massing of the elevation of the building fronting onto the roundabout incorporating the sign within the fabric of the building.

The DCP Landscape Officer was also consulted on the application and considered that the application site is in a prominent position but is partially screened by a bund with maritime planting. Given the nature and scale of the existing buildings within Osprey Quay, the Landscape Officer did not consider that the proposed retail unit and associated car parking would have a significant impact upon the local landscape character or visual amenity and therefore had no objection. Conditions were recommended for full details of soft landscaping and replanting of any tree/plant that is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies within a five year period from the date of planting. However as part of the BMEP as agreed with the DCC Natural Environment Team a landscaping plan was submitted showing the remainder of the site as a wildflower area and therefore the conditions requested by the Landscape Officer are not considered to be required.

11.3 Residential Amenity

The application site is bounded to the north, west and south-west by highway infrastructure, including Hamm Beach Road to the north and Portland Beach Road to the south-west. To the south-east is an area of further vacant land and area used for parking and storage associated with the sailing academy. Further to the south-east are a collection of industrial/commercial uses. Given the distance of the proposed food store from residential properties it is considered that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties.

11.4 Highway Safety

The proposed food store would be accessed off Hamm Beach Road and would include the provision of 114 car parking spaces. DCC Highways were consulted on the application and had no objection in principle subject to amendments which included modification of the access bell-mouth for tactiles and dropped kerbs for a wheel chair and pram crossing point and the provision of a secure shelter storage for staff cycles. In response to these comments an amended plan was submitted addressing the concerns raised to which DCC Highways held no objection subject to conditions for the turning and parking construction as submitted and cycle parking which would be placed on any approval granted.

Concerns were raised by third parties in relation to the accessibility of the site by public transport. The closest bus stop to the site is located at Victoria Square which is serviced frequently but is approximately a 15 minute walk, there is a bus stop in close proximity to the entrance to the site but is serviced by a limited, seasonal bus service. A high number of comments have been received regarding the diverting of the existing frequent bus service to the site however it is a

Page 84 completely commercial service and is not subsidised by DCC and therefore financial contributions to the bus service cannot be requested. However if approval was to be granted, once the food store is there it might provide the incentive for the bus route to be changed ,also the applicant could approach the bus company separately outside of this application.

During the consultation process concerns were raised due to the lack of provision of parking spaces with electric car charging points. Para 110 of the NPPF sets out that applications for development should …

e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.

In response to this amended plans were provided which showed two rapid charging bays. It was requested that further charging points be provided as part of the scheme however the NPPF does not specify a number and neither does local policy. The agent also explained that a rapid EVC proposed would be 50KW which would charge vehicles in 30 minutes – 3 hours which would work well with the average shopping time, compared to the standard EVC which takes 3 hours – 14 hours, although the rapid EVC would be more costly. It was considered that due to the lack of a specified number for the provision of such charging points in policy, the provision of two electric charging spaces is acceptable. A condition would be placed on any approval that the store cannot be brought in to use before the provision of the two electric charging points.

11.5 Contaminated Land

The proposed development is located within a former oil depot which has the potential to be a source of significant contamination. WPA were consulted on the application and held no objection provided that contaminated land planning conditions are applied to ensure that potential contaminated land risks are properly investigated, assessed and managed. WPA recommended that a standard contaminated land planning condition be placed on the application however the Phase 1 Report complies with part a) of the standard condition and therefore would not be required. An unexpected contamination condition was also recommended and would be placed on any approval granted.

The previous use of the proposed development site as a large oil storage deport presents a high risk of contamination that could be mobilised during construction to pollute controlled waters. The Environment Agency were satisfied that the Phase 1 Report submitted as part of the application meant it would be possible to suitably manage the risk posed to controlled waters by the development. However further detailed information would be required before built development is undertaken and therefore conditions were requested, some of which had been covered in the conditions requested by the WPA.

Page 85 11.6 Drainage

A drainage strategy was not submitted as part of the original application and therefore a holding objection was placed on the application by the DCC Flood Risk Management Team. In response to these comments a Drainage Strategy was submitted and the Flood Risk Management Team withdrew their objection subject to conditions and informatives. In their comments they also stated that the withdrawal of their objection is conditional upon the Environment Agency’s acceptance of a suitable and fit-for-purpose Flood Risk Assessment since drainage infrastructure is unlikely to function if tidal flood risk has not been appropriately considered and mitigated against. A further response was provided by the EA to confirm this. Two conditions were requested by the Flood Risk Management Team for a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme and details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme which will be placed on any approval granted.

Wessex Water were also consulted on the application and held no objection and were satisfied that the proposed site layout observes the statutory easements and gives sufficient clearance and access to the public sewers.

11.7 Flooding

The application site is located within flood zones 2 and 3, a flood risk assessment (FRA) was submitted as part of the application. The Environment Agency was consulted on the application and held no objection subject to conditions and informatives which will be placed on any approval granted. As part of the comments from the Environment Agency it stated that the development may be required to pass the sequential test and that a position should be agreed between the applicant and the planning authority. In this case it was considered that a sequential test was not required as the proposal is for retail, it is on an allocated site within the local plan, an FRA was submitted as part of the application and a sequential test has not been required on previous applications on the Osprey Quay site.

11.8 Biodiversity

A biodiversity mitigation plan was submitted as part of the application, DCC Natural Environment Team (NET) were consulted on the application and required some changes to be made to the BMP including the use of native coastal plants used in seeding/planting only. In response these comments an amended BMP was submitted and associated changes made to the site plan and subsequently NET produced a certificate of approval for the BMEP. A condition would be placed on any approval for the works to be carried out in accordance with the BMP.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY :

Page 86

12.1 The application involves the erection of a class A1 retail store, car parking, landscaping, servicing, revised access and associated works. The site is located within the defined development boundary and is considered to comply with local plan policies SUS 2, ECON 4 and PORT 1. It is also considered acceptable in relation to visual amenity, residential amenity, flooding, drainage, biodiversity, contaminated land and highway safety.

13. RECOMMENDATION:

Approve 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:

Location Plan – drawing number AD 100 Proposed Site Plan – drawing number AD 110 – Rev D Proposed Site Finishes – drawing number AD 115 – Rev D Proposed Boundary Treatments – drawing number AD 114 – Rev E Landscaping Plan – drawing number 1235 Proposed Roof Plan – drawing number AD 112 Proposed Building Plan – drawing number AD 111 Proposed Elevations – drawing number AD 113 – Rev B

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

3. The store hereby approved shall be used as a discount food retailer only and for no other retail use within Class A1 of the Use Classes Order, 1987 (as amended) in accordance with the following stipulations;

1) the sales area (convenience and comparison goods) shall not exceed 1,104sq m,

2) the ancillary space shall not exceed 230sq m,

3) the storage space shall not exceed 465 sq m and

4) The food store shall not provide any of the following services without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority;

Page 87 a) Fresh meat counter b) Fresh fish counter c) Delicatessen/cheese counter d) Hot Food e) Post office services but not including the sale of books or postage stamps

REASON: The application is justified on the basis of the provision of a discount food retailer on the site and to ensure control is retained over the use of the development for this purpose in the interests of the vitality and viability of existing centres.

4. The store hereby approved shall not be sub-divided into smaller units nor shall a mezzanine space be inserted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: The application is justified on the basis of the provision of a discount food retailer on the site and the Council is concerned to ensure control is retained over the use of the development for this purpose in the interests of the vitality and viability of existing centres.

5. No development shall be commenced until a plan showing final site ground levels and finished floor level, in accordance with the flood mitigation measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment (Jubb Consulting Engineers Limited, V4, dated 23 August 2018), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The finished floor level shall be set no lower than 4.0 meters above Ordnance Datum (AOD). Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development.

6. The development hereby approved shall be first used until flood warning and emergency evacuation procedure notices have been erected in numbers, positions and with wording which shall have first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the notices shall be kept legible and clear of obstruction.

REASON: To ensure that users of the site are aware that the area is at risk of flooding, and the emergency evacuation procedure and route(s) to be used during flood events.

7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved the following information shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site, and incorporating a ‘conceptual model’ of all potential pollutant linkages, detailing the

Page 88 identified sources, pathways and receptors and basis of risk assessment; b) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed;

REASON: To ensure potential land contamination is addressed.

8. The store shall not be first brought into use until a verification report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met.

REASON: To ensure that the site does not pose any further risk to human health or the water environment by demonstrating that the requirements of the approved verification plan have been met and that remediation of the site is complete.

9. The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until a monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination, including a timetable of monitoring and submission of reports to the Local Planning Authority, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Reports as specified in the approved plan, including details of any necessary contingency action arising from the monitoring, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the monitoring and maintenance plan and the timetable for monitoring.

REASON: To ensure that the site does not pose any further risk to human health or the water environment by managing any ongoing contamination issues and completing all necessary long-term remediation measures.

10. In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, this must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment, conducted in accordance with recognised good practice, and a proposed remediation scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and approval. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

REASON: To ensure risks from contamination are minimised.

11. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the development is not put at unacceptable risk from,

Page 89 or adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of water pollution caused by mobilised contaminants.

12. Piling, deep foundations and other types of intrusive groundworks (investigation boreholes / tunnel shafts / ground source heating and cooling systems etc.) using penetrative methods shall not be carried out other than with the written consent of the local planning authority.

REASON: To ensure that any proposed piling, deep foundations and other types of intrusive groundworks (investigation boreholes / tunnel shafts / ground source heating and cooling systems etc.) does not harm groundwater resources.

13.No development shall be commenced until a scheme for managing any borehole installed for the investigation of soils, groundwater or geotechnical purposes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall provide details of how redundant boreholes are to be decommissioned, the timetable for doing so and how any boreholes that need to be retained, post-development, for monitoring purposes will be secured, protected and inspected. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: To prevent deterioration of a water quality and to ensure that redundant boreholes are safe and secure, and do not cause groundwater pollution or loss of water.

14. Before the development hereby approved is first occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plan AD 110 D 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.

15. Before the development is occupied or utilised the cycle parking facilities shown on Drawing Number AD 110 D must have been constructed. Thereafter, these must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper construction of the parking facilities and to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes.

16. No development shall take place until a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme

Page 90 shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.

17. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.

18. The store shall not be brought into use until the provision of two electric charging parking spaces has been made on the site as shown on drawing number AD 110 – Rev D and permanently retained as such thereafter.

REASON: To promote the use of more sustainable transport modes

19. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in the accordance with the materials as specified on the drawing number AD 113 – Rev B.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity.

20. No external lighting shall be erected on the buildings hereby approved or within the application site identified by the red line on the approved drawings without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development must be carried out in accordance with the agreed details.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity.

21. The store shall not be brought into use until the proposed railings as shown as a blue, dashed line on drawing number AD 114 – Rev E have been erected.

REASON: To clarify the extent of the permission.

22. The development hereby approved shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Mitigation & Enhancement Plan signed by K Sproson and dated 15/11/2018, and agreed by Dorset County Council on 18/11/2018 unless a subsequent variation is agreed in writing with the Council.

Page 91 REASON: In the interests of biodiversity mitigation and enhancement.

23. The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until a habitat management plan detailing the creation, management, maintenance and monitoring of the grassland area proposed has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of biodiversity mitigation and enhancement.

Page 92 Agenda Item 10

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00489/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: Land at Junction of Dorchester Road & Mercery Road, Weymouth DT3 5FA

PROPOSAL: Erection of discount food store (use class A1) with customer car parking, soft & hard landscaping & associated works

APPLICANT: London Metric Retail Limited

CASE OFFICER: Emma Telford

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Ferrari & Cllr Nixon

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Delegate authority to the Head of Planning for approval subject to a Section 106 to ensure a financial contribution for the bus shelter and conditions

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The application site is bounded by Mercery Road to the east, the railway line to the west and Mercery Road/Dorchester Road to the south. To the north of the application site is the Medisave building which shares a vehicular access with the Sainsbury’s food store, the latter for service access only. The Mercery Road/Dorchester Road junction is elevated relative to the application site being some 5m above the typical level on the site. Between the road junction and the site (outside of the application boundary) there is a grassy zone and the site is lined with trees along the boundaries with the road.

1.2 The application site is located within the defined development boundary for Weymouth and is an allocated key employment site.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 The proposal involves the erection of a discount food store (use class A1) with customer car parking, soft & hard landscaping & associated works. The proposed food store would have a floorspace of 1,801sqm. The proposed food store would be accessed off Mercery Road with the provision of 100 car parking spaces.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

Application Proposal Decision Decision Date No.

Page 93 11/00096/H Hybrid application for the erection of New Approved 18/07/2011 YBE Look office building (5,840sqm) including access, parking, cycle parking and servicing facilities (full planning application); erection of a foodstore, associated petrol filling station and parking (outline planning application with all matters reserved except layout); development of the remainder of the site to provide employment floorspace, hotel, pub/restaurant plus associated parking (outline planning application with all matters reserved)

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

4.1 National Planning policy Framework (NPPF) 2018

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

2. Achieving sustainable development 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 7. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places

Decision-making:

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision- makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

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

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

 Int1. Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development  Env1. Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest  Env10. The Landscape and Townscape Setting  Env11. The Pattern of Streets and Spaces  Env12. The Design and Positioning of Buildings

Page 94  Env14. Shop Fronts and Advertisements  Env16. Amenity  Sus1. The Level of Economic and Housing Growth  Sus2. Distribution of Development  Econ2. Protection of Key Employment Sites  Econ4. Retail and Town Centre Development  Com7. Creating a Safe and Efficient transport Network  Com9. Parking Standards in New Development  Com10. The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

5.1 Supplementary Planning Documents

 Urban Design (2002)  Weymouth and Portland Landscape Character Assessment 2013  DCC Parking standards guidance

6. HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

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

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:

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

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

Page 95 The proposal involves the provision of 4 dedicated disabled parking bays adjacent to the entrance of the store and 7 parent and child spaces in close proximity to the entrance.

8. CONSULTATIONS:

8.1 Natural England – No objection, subject to condition

Natural England welcomes the submission of an ecological survey and Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP). However, the submitted BMP is not supported by an approval certificate from the Dorset County Council’s Natural Environment Team (DCC NET). The DCC NET approval of the submitted BMP will provide your authority with an independent appraisal of the policy and legal implications of the ecological information submitted by the applicant in support of their application. Provided a DCC NET approved BMP is received and its implementation secured by any permission then your authority may be satisfied that it will have met its duties under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 and no further consultation with Natural England on this aspect of the proposal is required. In the event that a BMP cannot be agreed through the DCC NET then Natural England should be re- consulted on the proposals so that we can reconsider our advice.

8.2 Network Rail - The Developer must ensure that their proposal, both during construction and after completion of works on site, does not:  encroach onto Network Rail land  affect the safety, operation or integrity of the company’s railway and its infrastructure  undermine its support zone  damage the company’s infrastructure  place additional load on cuttings  adversely affect any railway land or structure  over-sail or encroach upon the air-space of any Network Rail land  cause to obstruct or interfere with any works or proposed works or Network Rail development both now and in the future

The developer should comply with the following comments and requirements for the safe operation of the railway and the protection of Network Rail's adjoining land.

Future maintenance The development must ensure any future maintenance can be conducted solely on the applicant’s land. The applicant must ensure that any construction and any subsequent maintenance can be carried out to any proposed buildings or structures without adversely affecting the safety of, or encroaching upon Network Rail’s adjacent land and air-space, and therefore all/any building should be situated at least 2 metres (3m for overhead lines and third rail) from Network

Page 96 Rail’s boundary. The reason for the 2m (3m for overhead lines and third rail) stand off requirement is to allow for construction and future maintenance of a building and without requirement for access to the operational railway environment which may not necessarily be granted or if granted subject to railway site safety requirements and special provisions with all associated railway costs charged to the applicant. Any less than 2m (3m for overhead lines and third rail) and there is a strong possibility that the applicant (and any future resident) will need to utilise Network Rail land and air-space to facilitate works. The applicant / resident would need to receive approval for such works from Network Rail Asset Protection, the applicant / resident would need to submit the request at least 20 weeks before any works were due to commence on site and they would be liable for all costs (e.g. all possession costs, all site safety costs, all asset protection presence costs). However, Network Rail is not required to grant permission for any third party access to its land. No structure/building should be built hard-against Network Rail’s boundary as in this case there is an even higher probability of access to Network Rail land being required to undertake any construction / maintenance works. Equally any structure/building erected hard against the boundary with Network Rail will impact adversely upon our maintenance teams’ ability to maintain our boundary fencing and boundary treatments.

Drainage Storm/surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail’s property or into Network Rail’s culverts or drains except by agreement with Network Rail. Suitable drainage or other works must be provided and maintained by the Developer to prevent surface water flows or run-off onto Network Rail’s property. Proper provision must be made to accept and continue drainage discharging from Network Rail’s property; full details to be submitted for approval to Network Rail Asset Protection. Suitable foul drainage must be provided separate from Network Rail’s existing drainage. Soakaways, as a means of storm/surface water disposal must not be constructed near/within 10 – 20 metres of Network Rail’s boundary or at any point which could adversely affect the stability of Network Rail’s property. After the completion and occupation of the development, any new or exacerbated problems attributable to the new development shall be investigated and remedied at the applicants’ expense.

Plant & Materials All operations, including the use of cranes or other mechanical plant working adjacent to Network Rail’s property, must at all times be carried out in a “fail safe” manner such that in the event of mishandling, collapse or failure, no plant or materials are capable of falling within 3.0m of the boundary with Network Rail.

Scaffolding Any scaffold which is to be constructed within 10 metres of the railway boundary fence must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles over-sail the railway and protective netting around such scaffold must be installed. The

Page 97 applicant/applicant’s contractor must consider if they can undertake the works and associated scaffold/access for working at height within the footprint of their property boundary.

Piling Where vibro-compaction/displacement piling plant is to be used in development, details of the use of such machinery and a method statement should be submitted for approval to Network Rail Asset Protection prior to the commencement of works and the works shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Fencing In view of the nature of the development, it is essential that the developer provide (at their own expense) and thereafter maintain a substantial, trespass proof fence along the development side of the existing boundary fence, to a minimum height of 1.8 metres. The 1.8m fencing should be adjacent to the railway boundary and the developer/applicant should make provision for its future maintenance and renewal without encroachment upon Network Rail land. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged and at no point either during construction or after works are completed on site should the foundations of the fencing or wall or any embankment therein, be damaged, undermined or compromised in any way. Any vegetation on Network Rail land and within Network Rail’s boundary must also not be disturbed. Any fencing installed by the applicant must not prevent Network Rail from maintaining its own fencing/boundary treatment.

Lighting Any lighting associated with the development (including vehicle lights) must not interfere with the sighting of signalling apparatus and/or train drivers vision on approaching trains. The location and colour of lights must not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. The developers should obtain Network Rail’s approval of their detailed proposals regarding lighting.

Noise and Vibration The potential for any noise/ vibration impacts caused by the proximity between the proposed development and any existing railway must be assessed in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework which hold relevant national guidance information. The current level of usage may be subject to change at any time without notification including increased frequency of trains, night time train running and heavy freight trains.

Vehicle Incursion Where a proposal calls for hard standing area / parking of vehicles area near the boundary with the operational railway, Network Rail would recommend the installation of a highways approved vehicle incursion barrier or high kerbs to

Page 98 prevent vehicles accidentally driving or rolling onto the railway or damaging lineside fencing.

8.3 Wessex Water - The drainage strategy indicates that surface water will be attenuated on site and released off site at 5 l/s. No point of connection has been indicated to either local watercourse or surface water sewer; clarification required. Our records also indicate that an existing surface water sewer discharges into the site, this will require clarification and incorporation into site / drainage design. There must be no surface water connections to the foul sewer network.

8.4 Dorset Police Crime Prevention – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.5 Dorset Waste Partnership – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.6 WPA Consultants – Based on information included in the Phase I and II Geo- Environmental Assessment the area specified has been adequately characterised and development could proceed with a discovery strategy condition.

WPA’s comments are specifically for the assessment of contaminated land and do not purport to consider geotechnical engineering, ecological, flood risk or drainage design information included in the Reports.

8.7 Parks and Open Spaces – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.8 DCC Highways –

Land stability Details provided do not raise concerns with respect to highway stability. However, there are no details provided (existing and proposed site levels or sections) at the corner of the site closest to the Dorchester Road embankment and the railway bridge.

The Bridge Management Team Leader has no objection in principle to the development but more detail is required in the area described to ensure there is no negative impact on the Dorchester Road embankment. The bridge is owned by Network Rail who would need to be consulted if there are changes to ground levels adjacent to the bridge.

Sustainable Travel In the interests of sustainable travel options Aldi should be asked to provide a bus shelter on the opposite side of Mercery Road at the existing bus stop

Page 99 together with dropped kerbs and tactile paving on both sides of Mercery Road and a short link of footway across the adjacent verge. This connects with service 2 which links to Littlemoor. Would these works need and estimate or can it be dealt with by way of a Grampian condition?

Suggested condition Turning and parking construction as submitted 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.

8.9 In response to the comments made regarding highway stability, further section drawings were submitted and further comments made by DCC Highways.

8.10 Further DCC Highways - There is always a potential to adversely affect the embankment but the excavation is relatively shallow and a good distance from the highway boundary. The risk to the highway is minimal. I do not need to see any more detail.

8.11 DCC Flood Risk Management Team – The site is shown to fall within Flood Zone 1 (low risk, fluvial) as are surrounding areas. Weymouth itself, however, is situated near to sea level and has various Main & Ordinary Watercourses (OWC) running through urban areas, which are immediately adjacent two wetland areas in the form of Lodmoor and Radipole. Drainage is therefore constrained by raised Ground Water (GW) as well as submerged and tidally locked SW sewer systems. Drainage proposals should therefore be carefully considered within this wider context, especially given historic flood events, which have resulted in reported internal and external flooding, for various reasons, throughout Weymouth. The urban drainage and wetland interface at Lodmoor was recently investigated by us due to flooding upstream of this nature reserve.

With respect to pluvial risk, the site is impacted by a small extent of localised ponding in the north-eastern corner of the red line boundary as shown within the documents referenced below. This flooding is known to occur and theorised to present itself during 1 in 30 year rainfall events onwards. Surrounding flood risk to the east is well documented within the report referred to above. Pluvial flood risk to the west is less well documented, however, some flooding is modelled to occur during 1 in 30 year storms onwards at and along Roman Road & Close, according to the EA’s Risk of Flooding from Surface Water (RoFfSW) mapping.

Regardless of prevailing risk, however, any development has the potential to exacerbate or create flood risk, if runoff is not appropriately considered and

Page 100 managed as evidenced by a substantiated SW strategy. Ordinarily therefore, and in keeping with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), all major development proposals must take due consideration of SW water management and should offer a drainage strategy that does not create or exacerbate off site worsening and should mitigate flood risk at the site.

The documents submitted provide detail regarding drainage from the applicant’s site. As a result, we can acknowledge the following:

 The applicant has provided approximate greenfield runoff rates – although these do seem low, this is to the benefit of the wider community since the applicant will need to mimic these greenfield conditions. As such, we are willing to accept the figures presented.  The applicant has quantified impermeable areas and provided a provisional layout.  Natural flow regimes and topography has also been considered, as has the use of pervious paving in car park areas.

However, the following concerns need to be addressed/clarified further. At this time therefore, we recommend that a (Holding) Objection be applied to this proposal.

Insufficient detail has been provided regarding SW management from the development. As such, we are unable to ascertain, to our satisfaction, the appropriateness of any SW strategy, in accordance with the Ministerial statement ‘Sustainable Drainage System’ 2014, paragraph 103 of the NPPF and the revised Planning Policy Guidance. As relevant LLFA in this matter, DCC is therefore not able to comment on whether Defra’s technical guidance has been met, or to assess that the minimum standards of operation are appropriate for the development.

Our (Holding) Objection may be overcome via the submission of further or additional details, which address the concerns raised above. Accordingly, we ask to be re-consulted on the surface water scheme if further information is supplied. Out objection will be maintained until an adequate SW scheme has been approved in principle. We may at that stage request suitable planning condition/s and informative/s to cover detailed design, further maintenance and potential requirement for other permissions.

8.12 In response to the comments of the Flood Risk Team, further information has been provided to address the comments made on which they have provided further comment. Further comments were also provided by Wessex Water.

8.13 Further DCC Flood Risk Management Team – The revised submissions clarify the following:

Page 101  The applicant has been in contact with Wessex Water and whilst they have not agreed a point of connection or the discharge rate, we note their email dated 30/11/2018, which accepts that this can be considered further at Discharge of Conditions (DoC) stage.  The applicant has agreed to provide sufficient attenuation to match greenfield runoff rates, using a complex control, for 1 in 1, 1 in 30 and 1 in 100-year rainfall events. For a 1 in 1-year rainfall event peak runoff will be restricted to 1.4l/s.  The applicant has agreed to store runoff underground for all events up to and including the 1 in 100-year storm.  Climate change allowances will be attenuated above ground as per the drawings included in the above DS addendum. Provisional storage volumes have been calculated for this and an indicative layout has also been provided. We understand from a SW advice meeting held with EvolveUK, that above ground climate change volumes will be 100m3 at 20% and 202m3 at 40%.  The applicant has not been able to confirm levels in respect of the SW system proposed as the receiving system, however, EvolveUK have confirmed by email the levels of an alternative system north of their preferred point of connection and this confirms that sufficient fall exists to drain the proposed tank.  Montagu Evans LLP have acknowledged WW’s email, on behalf of their client, concerning a SW overflow sewer, which appears to outfall directly under the envisaged store location. The applicant has confirmed that they are aware of the need for further survey and potential diversion works that will likely be needed, and are content for this to be conditioned, as below.

Given the addition information provided we are content to withdraw our objection to the application subject to the conditions and informatives at the end of this letter being included on any permission granted.

Whilst we have withdrawn our objection to this application, the following remains outstanding and will need addressing at DoC / detailed design stage:

 Insufficient detail has been provided in respect of maintenance. We understand that the applicant will remain responsible for the proposed drainage infrastructure, however, no written information has been provided to confirm that the applicant understands this ongoing liability or what this might entail. This will need to be provided at DoC stage.  We will expect to see survey work concerning any existing drainage and proposed receiving system, as well as evidence of dialogue with WW – particularly in relation to the overflow pipe. A diversion may be needed, and we will expect to see proposals that are designed to Wessex Water’s satisfaction. This may involve a capacity analysis of the receiving system.

Page 102

To ensure that the above points are considered, along with the usual detailed design requirements, we recommend you apply the following conditions to any grant of planning permission approved by the LPA:

No development shall take place until a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.

No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.

No development shall take place until a full and detailed drainage survey of the proposed receiving system and any on site drainage infrastructure has been completed to the planning authority’s satisfaction. Any subsequent diversionary works deemed necessary by the relevant sewage undertaker must be fully agreed by the planning authority prior to commencement.

REASON: To ensure future functioning of an existing drainage system and sufficient capacity of any receiving system.

In our earlier response, we discussed and objected to the lack of consideration of SuDS features that might offer multifunctional benefits, such as amenity, water quality and ecology, as per policy No’s: 118, 127, 165 and 170 in HM Government’s 2018 NPPF. The applicant has written to confirm that the northern part of the applicant’s red line boundary is not available for creation of an attenuation basin, since this will be developed for other employment purposes at a later stage. In addition, verbal conversations with the applicant’s drainage consultant have confirmed that all space within the developable area will be needed for parking, although no evidence has been provided which explains or justifies this. Ordinarily, in the absence of any economic argument, or

Page 103 engineering justification as to why open attenuation features are not feasible, we would look to object. At this site, however, we have withdrawn our objection for the following site-specific reasons:  Confirmation from the planning authority that you would be unlikely to give sufficient weight, at this site, to the policies mentioned above which seek use of open attenuation features over and above the underground tanks currently proposed.  That the LPA are minded to accept the arguments presented by the applicant concerning their need for the indicated number of parking spaces. The receiving system discharges into a balancing pond, which is only a short distance from the applicant’s site. We are therefore satisfied that sufficient multifunctional benefits are already offered by the receiving system and will offer some water quality protection to the downstream SSSI.  We have no concerns about the feasibility of the proposed underground storage system and accept that, from an engineering perspective, an underground or open storage feature could be designed to work, but that the space requirements are greater when using open drainage features.

8.14 Further Wessex Water - The layout appears to observe the 3m offset from the 300mm public sewer along the western boundary. Sewers should be accurately located and marked on site and the easement width observed throughout the construction programme and unrestricted access maintained thereafter. As previously advised, our records show a surface water sewer overflow which outfalls in to the proposed development site. The position of the 150mm sewer and the point of discharge conflicts with the footprint of the foodstore building and will require a sewer diversion if the application is granted. As this is a storm sewer overflow, a direct connection back to the nearest 300mm SW sewer is not satisfactory. Wessex Water will consider the diversion of the 150mm sewer (subject to satisfactory hydraulic conditions and capacity) to a point north east of the site downstream of manhole SY67814405. It is acknowledged that the planning authority will need to determine this application and in the circumstances we agree that the surface water drainage strategy can be dealt with by an appropriately worded pre-commencement condition to allow for additional surveys and, dialogue with Wessex Water as part of the discharge of condition submission once the application is determined.

8.15 DCP Landscape Officer – The site lies within the Ridge and Vale landscape character area. The section of the ridge and vale character area in immediate proximity to the application site has been heavily influenced by commercial development and the new park-and-ride site.

Page 104 The site is currently largely enclosed by woodland planting to the west and south and avenue planting along Mercery Road to the east. To the north there is an existing commercial unit and an access point into the plot. The proposed scheme only utilises approximately 60% of the plot.

The site contains rank grassland and scrub. The proposals are to remove a quantity of the block of woodland planting along the western boundary of the site and to remove 5 avenue trees to accommodate a new entrance into the site from Mercery Road.

Looking at the tree protection plan, it appears that two large trees in tree group TG5 on the western boundary will need to be removed due to them being too close to a proposed retaining wall and the new car-park surface. The proposed tree protection fencing seems to confirm this. This would leave a very thin area of screening in this part of the site.

I recommend looking at utilising the entire plot for this scheme, which would allow the use of the existing plot entrance. This would negate the need to create a new entrance and break the avenue of trees along Mercery Road. Using the entire plot would also increase the available space for the proposed building, which would negate the need to remove any of the woodland belt on the western boundary and provide more space for additional landscape mitigation.

8.16 DCP Commercial Housing – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.17 DCP Spatial Policy – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.18 DCP Urban Design – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.19 DCP Environmental Health – Please ensure that this application is commented upon by a suitably qualified contaminated land consultant.

8.20 DCP Technical Services – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.21 DCP Trees Officer – The site boundary of the whole site is bordered by many trees which are highly visible, thereby contributing to the amenity value of the area in general. As such, all the trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order, TPO 209.

There are a small number of trees proposed for removal where it is intended to construct the access to the site. This would unfortunately break up the line of

Page 105 trees bordering Mercery Road into sections, decreasing their value in their visual contribution to the street scene.

Has consideration been given by the developer to use the existing access to the site from Mercery Road which serves Medisave House, the unit immediately to the north?

8.22 In response to the comments made by the DCP Tree Officer, further information was provided in response to which the DCP Tree Officer made a further comment.

8.23 Further Trees Officer - Although the trees proposed for removal to create access to the site are not perfect specimens, I would have favoured their retention with access to the site being from the existing access further to the north. However, it appears that this existing access is not within the proposed site ( although it may be within the same ownership ) and therefore, there is no other option but to agree to the removal of the specimens mentioned – subject to the planting strategy prepared by Macgregor Smith being implemented.

8.24 DCP Property Services – No comments received at the time of report preparation.

8.25 DCP Economic Development - It is noted that the applicant wishes to use the land for retail purposes, which in Economic Development terms we view as generating employment opportunities. Weymouth has a grave shortage of local employment opportunities which this proposed development will help to address. The retail operation is also likely to offer a range of opportunities from part-time low wage retail assistants to supervisory and management staff and therefore be of interest across the local population. On this basis we offer no objection to the application.

8.26 All full consultee responses and representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com

9. REPRESENTATIONS:

9.1 Eleven third party comments have been received objecting to the proposed works the main reasons for which are summarised below:

 Additional supermarket would add to existing traffic and highway safety concerns  Proposed entrance cuts across a shared use footpath/cycleway with no central refuge to enable pedestrians/cyclists to cross what is likely to be a busy entrance  Approval certificate from DCC NET as requested by Natural England still not provided

Page 106  No need for additional store – already 3 supermarkets  If replacement store for the existing Aldi would result in an empty unit  Existing store is well placed  Removing a discount supermarket from the town centre to an out-of-town location is not sustainable not economically justifiable  Site provided an important green screen to the rest of the Mercery Road area  Removal of trees as part of proposal  Site provides a useful natural water storage area  Proposed store not much bigger than the one already serving the town  More suitable location starting with Littlemoor  Impact on neighbouring amenity  Site is a main rainwater flood outlet  This junction has reached its capacity  Relocation would bring no further jobs  Light pollution has a significant impact on the area and to neighbouring properties  Supermarkets should be distributed more widely around the area to give adequate access  Concerned for the continued viability of the existing retail outlets in the general Radipole /Mount Pleasant area  Unsustainable development

9.2 Comments were also received in relation to the proposal impacting on house prices of neighbouring properties however this is not considered a material planning consideration and will not be considered as part of this application.

10. PLANNING ISSUES:

 Principle of development  Visual Amenity  Residential Amenity  Highway Safety  Drainage  Biodiversity  Trees/Landscape  Contamination

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of Development

The proposed works is for the erection of a discount food store (use class A1). The application site is located within the defined development boundary for Weymouth. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having

Page 107 particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. The site also formed part of a previous application 11/00096/HYBE for the wider Weymouth Gateway site which was granted permission in 2011. As the proposal is for retail development policy ECON 4 of the local plan is applicable. Policy ECON 4 requires applications for new retail development to undertake a sequential test which was submitted as part of the application.

Carter Jonas were instructed to undertake a retail assessment of the proposal on the behalf of the Council (which is available in full on www.dorsetforyou.com ). Carter Jonas considered that Aldi satisfies the sequential test and would not, result in a significant adverse ‘solus’ or ‘cumulative’ impact, when considered alongside the proposed Lidl (WP/18/00699/FUL) at Osprey Quay, Portland on the overall vitality and viability of the Borough’s main centre; principally Weymouth and Easton. On this basis, the proposal was not considered to lead to significant adverse impacts on existing centres and therefore complies with local plan policy ECON 4. Carter Jonas as part of their response recommended conditions which included limiting the sales area of the store, as set out in the submitted Planning and Retail Assessment. The prevention of the sub-division of the store into smaller units, a condition for the store to be used as a discount retailer and a condition specifying the types of produce and services that cannot be sold/offered all of which would be placed on any approval granted.

Carter Jonas also recommended some sort of agreement to ensure that the new store does not open until after the existing Aldi store at Jubilee Retail park has closed as this was fundamental to Carter Jonas assessment of the application proposal. However after taking legal advice it was considered that this would not be justified as the existing store could close and another separate A1 use could open in the unit the following day.

As the application site also forms part of a key employment site, Mount Pleasant policy ECON 2 of the local plan is also applicable. Policy ECON 2 states that retail uses will not generally be supported on key employment sites. However in this case a more flexible approach was considered appropriate through discussion with DCP Policy given the historical lack of interest in the site from prospective B Use Class occupiers, the sites surround uses and the net job creation of some 15-20 jobs from the creation of proposed larger Aldi store on the site. This was further supported in the comments of the DCP Economic Development Officer who considered that given the shortage of local employment opportunities in Weymouth the proposed development could help to address and is likely to offer a range of opportunities and therefore raised no objection to the application. As part of the application an External Lighting Report has been submitted which is considered acceptable and the any approval would be conditioned for the lightening to be carried out in accordance with the report.

11.2 Visual Amenity

Page 108

The proposed food store is based on the latest Aldi concept, the store would feature a mono-pitch roof, projected out along the front elevation with the entrance/exit placed at the corner of the sales are and would be glazed full height. The proposed materials would be composite insulated cladding panels in two colours silver and anthracite grey. The roof would be covered with trapezoidal profile composite cladding panels, colour mid-grey. The location of the proposed store means it would be viewed in relation to the existing Medisave and Sainsbury’s to the north and the other development on the Gateway Site. Detailed elevations have been submitted setting out the proposed materials and therefore a condition would be placed on any approval for the development to carried out in accordance with these details.

11.3 Residential Amenity

The proposed works involve the erection of a discount food store. Concerns have been raised by third parties in relation to the impact of the proposal on neighbouring amenity. However the site is bounded by Mercery Road to the east, the railway line to the west and Mercery Road/Dorchester Road to the south. This provides separation between the proposal and neighbouring residential properties. To the north of the site is the existing Medisave building and Sainsbury’s beyond. The proposed store would also be located towards the rear of the site behind the proposed car park providing further separation between the proposed building and the residential properties to the south. Given all of the above the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties.

11.4 Highway Safety

Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the proposal on existing traffic and highway safety in the local area. DCC Highways have no objection to the proposal subject to a condition for the turning and parking construction to be constructed as submitted on any approval granted. Comments were also made regarding land instability and the impact of the proposal on the Dorchester Road embankment however further section drawings were submitted and it was considered that there is always potential to adversely affect the embankment but the excavation is relatively shallow and a good distance from the highway boundary. The risk to the highway is minimal. I do not need to see any more detail. Comments were also raised that in the interests of sustainable travel options provision should be made for bus shelter on the opposite side of Mercery Road which would be provided by a S106 for a financial contribution for the provision of the bus shelter and associated works.

Para 110 of the NPPF sets out that applications for development should …

Page 109 e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.

In response to this a further plan was submitted showing the provision of two electric charging spaces, the agent has also included the provision of two passive charging spaces. A condition would be placed on any approval that the store cannot be brought in to use before the provision of the two electric charging points has been made on the site.

Network Rail also commented on the application due to the location of the site adjacent to the railway line. The comments include advice for the applicants and the requirement of the erection of a trespass proof fence which would be conditioned on any approval granted.

11.5 Drainage

A Drainage Strategy was submitted as part of the original submission. DCC Flood Risk Management Team were consulted on the application and placed a holding objection on the application as it was considered insufficient details had been provided regarding surface water from the development. In response to this holding objection, further information was submitted and given the submission of the additional information, DCC Flood Risk Management Team withdrew their objection subject to conditions and informatives. The conditions requested are for a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme, details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme and finally a full and detailed drainage survey which will be placed on any approval granted.

Comments were also made regarding the lack of consideration of SuDS features that might offer multifunctional benefits however the agent has confirmed that the northern part of the site is not available for an attenuation basin since it would be developed for other employment purposes at a later stage. Therefore the proposed underground tanks currently proposed are not considered a satisfactory reason for refusal on this site.

Wessex Water were also consulted on the application and considered that the layout accounts for the 3m offset from the 300m public sewer along the western boundary. Wessex Water records show a surface water sewer overflow outfalls into the proposed site which would conflict with the footprint of the proposal and a sewer diversion would be required. It was considered that a pre-commencement condition for a surface water drainage strategy would be acceptable and this would be placed on any approval granted.

11.6 Biodiversity

Page 110 The proposal involves the erection of a discount food store, Natural England were consulted on the application and held no objection but considered that the submitted Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) should be supported by an approval certificate from the DCC Natural Environment Team (NET). In response to this the BMP was submitted to NET and a certificate of approval was submitted. Any approval would be conditioned for the development to be carried out in accordance with the agreed BMP.

11.7 Trees/Landscape

The site, although currently undeveloped does form part of the key employment site and therefore has been considered previously for future development. The DCP Landscape Officer was consulted on the application who considered that the proposal would involve the removal of a quantity of the block of woodland planting along the western boundary and the removal of 5 avenue tress to accommodate the new entrance into the site from Mercery Road. The DCP Landscape Officer recommended that the entire plot should be utilised for this scheme which would allow the use of the existing plot entrance. However the agent for the application has since explained that this is not possible as the land between the proposal and the existing Medisave building to the north will be developed for a separate unit. In response to this the DCP Trees Officer provided a further comment setting out as there is no alternative to the removal of the specimens, their removal could be accepted to facilitate the new access subject to the implementation of the planting strategy. Therefore a condition would be placed on any approval for the development to be carried out in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan and the planting strategy.

11.8 Contamination

A Phase I and II Geo-Environmental Assessment was submitted as part of the application, WPA were consulted on the application and considered that the area specified has been adequately characterised and development could proceed with a discovery strategy condition so any approval would be conditioned as such.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

12.1 The application involves the erection of a discount food store (use class A1) with customer car parking, soft & hard landscaping & associated works. The proposal is located within the defined development boundary and is considered to comply with SUS 2 and ECON 4 of the Local Plan. A more flexible approach has been taken to policy ECON 2 of the Local Plan. It is also considered acceptable in relation to visual amenity, residential amenity, drainage, highway safety, contaminated land and biodiversity.

13. RECOMMENDATION:

Page 111

13.1 Delegate authority to the Head of Planning for approval subject to a Section 106 to ensure a financial contribution for the bus shelter and the following conditions:

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

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

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

Location Plan – drawing number 0300 Rev P-00 Proposed Floor Plan – drawing number 0310 Rev P-00 Proposed Elevations – drawing number 0312 Rev P-00 Proposed & Existing Site Sections – drawing number 0313 P-00 Proposed & Existing Site Sections – drawing number 0314 Rev P-00 Proposed Roof Plan – drawing number 0311 Rev P-01 Tree Protection Plan – drawing number 05016 TPP_Site 1 Proposed Site Plan – drawing number 0302 Rev P-00

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

3. The store hereby approved shall be used as a discount food retailer only and for no other retail use within Class A1 of the Use Classes Order, 1987 (as amended) in accordance with the following stipulations;

1) the sales area (convenience and comparison goods) shall not exceed 1,254sqm; 2) The food store shall not provide any of the following services without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority;

a) Fresh meat counter b) Fresh fish counter c) Delicatessen/cheese counter d) Hot Food e) Post office services but not including the sale of books or postage stamps

REASON: The application is justified on the basis of the provision of a discount food retailer on the site and the Council is concerned to ensure control is retained over the use of the development for this purpose in the interests of the vitality and viability of existing centres.

Page 112 4. The store hereby approved shall not be sub-divided into smaller units nor shall a mezzanine space be inserted without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: The application is justified on the basis of the provision of a discount food retailer on the site and the Council is concerned to ensure control is retained over the use of the development for this purpose in the interests of the vitality and viability of existing centres.

5. No development shall take place until a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.

6. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.

7. No development shall take place until a full and detailed drainage survey of the proposed receiving system and any on site drainage infrastructure has been completed to the planning authority’s satisfaction. Any subsequent diversionary works deemed necessary by the relevant sewage undertaker must be fully agreed by the planning authority prior to commencement.

REASON: To ensure future functioning of an existing drainage system and sufficient capacity of any receiving system.

8. 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.

Page 113 Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

9. The development hereby approved shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan dated 06/03/2018, and agreed by Dorset County Council on 10/09/2018, unless a subsequent variation is agreed in writing with the Council.

REASON: To ensure the adequate protection of a species and its habitat protected by law that exists on the site.

10. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details on the Tree Protection Plan and the planting strategy provided within the Landscape Proposals document submitted 25 June 2018, unless a subsequent variation is agreed in writing with the Council.

REASON: In the interest of visual amenity.

11. The store shall not first be brought into use until the provision of two electric charging parking spaces has been made on the site and retained as such thereafter.

REASON: To promote the use of more sustainable transport modes.

12. The development hereby approved shall be carried our in accordance with the materials as specified on the drawing number 0312 Rev P-00.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity.

13. In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, this must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment, conducted in accordance with recognised good practice, and a proposed remediation scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for consideration and approval. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

REASON: To ensure risks from contamination are minimised.

14. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the External Lighting Report carried out by Insignis Consulting Engineers dated 06/06/2018 and retained as such thereafter.

REASON: In the interest of residential amenity.

15. Prior to commencement of the development details of the trespass proof

Page 114 fence at a minimum height of 1.8m to be erected along the development side of the existing boundary fence on the western boundary on the site have been submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The fence should be erected in accordance with the details as agreed prior to commencement of construction works and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

REASON: In the interest of public safety.

Page 115 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/17/00866/OUT

APPLICATION SITE: SOUTHWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL, SWEETHILL LANE, PORTLAND, DT5 2DT

PROPOSAL: THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 58 NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS ROADS, PARKING, AND GREEN SPACE

APPLICANT: HOMES ENGLAND C/O MS M CREW, PETER BRETT ASSOCIATES

CASE OFFICER: MARTIN PENDLEBURY

WARD MEMBER(S): CLLRS K BAKER; P MCCARTNEY & R NOWAK

1.0 PREFACE

1.1 The applicant, Homes England, wish to amend the S106 Agreement and a number of outline pre-commencement planning conditions attached to the previous resolution by the Planning Committee (June 2018) to approve planning permission for the development of up to 58 new homes at Southwell Primary School, Portland. In essence they now seek to allow the demolition of the redundant vacant Southwell School buildings in advance of the submission of a Reserved Matters application.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:

2.1 Secure a Deed of Variation to the recently signed Section 106 Agreement to allow demolition of the redundant vacant school buildings prior to triggering the implementation requirements of the agreement, as detailed in Appendix 1.

1.2 Amend the wording of proposed outline pre-commencement planning conditions to allow demolition of the redundant vacant school buildings prior to the submission of Reserved Matters and commencement of specific stages of new built development, as specified in Appendix 1.

1.3 The original schedule of conditions resolved to approve by the Planning Committee is reproduced as Appendix 2, for ease of reference and comparison.

Page 117 2.0 REPORT

2.1 Members will recall that following a Committee site visit, the above referenced outline planning application submitted by Homes England was reported to the Weymouth and Portland Borough Council Planning Committee meeting on 6 June, 2018.

2.2 The Planning Committee resolved that subject to the National Planning Casework Unit confirming that they do not wish to call-in the application, delegate to the Head of Planning to approve subject to the completion of a Section106 Agreement to secure:

a. A policy compliant level of affordable housing, b. Provision of a development management company to ensure the retention and maintenance of existing site landscape features, and c. The inclusion of additional conditions outlined and presented to the committee on the day

2.3 All the outline application conditions originally resolved to approve by the Committee on 6 June, 2018 are set out in Appendix 2 to this report.

2.4 Notably the referral process to the National Planning Casework Unit was required given a residual “technical objection” by Sport England to the loss of the school playing field. That process was completed July 2018 with the National Planning Casework Unit confirming that they do not wish to ‘call-in’ and that Weymouth and Portland Borough Council are free to determine this planning application.

3.0 RATIONALE

3.1 The Applicant /Homes England’s rationale for this request is stated as:

3.2 Homes England’s remit is to accelerate delivery of housing and our normal approach is to market our own housing land with the benefit of an outline planning approval to establish the principle of development and provide clarity on developer obligations. To assist developers further we will usually market cleared sites and carry out any public infrastructure or site servicing works required.

3.3 Housing development on Portland of the scale proposed here will be challenging to many SMEs (small and medium sized builders), and Portland will not be attractive to national developers. In order to make the site as attractive as possible to SMEs we always intended to clear the site and remove the ‘abnormal’ development cost from demolishing the former school buildings. As well as making the site more marketable and developable to SME housebuilders, demolition in advance will speed up delivery.

Page 118

3.4 We are also aware that should we have to retain and manage the empty school buildings up to the point of a RM approval (summer 2019) – by the SME developer – this generates an unnecessary health and safety and security risk for neighbours of the property as well as ongoing management costs for Homes England.

3.5 We would like to commence marketing of the site in December on the basis that the demolition work is planned for Feb/March 2019 so the selected developer can proceed with the RM application and once approved, start housebuilding immediately on a cleared site.

4.0 CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Essentially the principle of granting outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the former Southwell Primary School site is established by the Planning Committee resolution dated 6 June, 2018. Therefore the focus of this report and planning considerations relates simply to Homes England’s request to demolish the former school buildings prior to the submission of Reserved Matters and certain triggers of development.

5.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 Application Ref: WP/17/00866/OUT - The Demolition of Existing Buildings and the Construction of up to 58 New Residential Properties, with Associated Access Roads, Parking and Green Space. Planning Committee resolved to approve the outline application on 6 June, 2018; details set out in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 above.

6.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

6.1 Planning Policy

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The site lies within the Defined Development Boundary for Southwell. Planning Policy is contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (Adopted October, 2015), and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012.

6.2 The West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October 2015) - the following policies are considered to be relevant:

INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Page 119 ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest (Portland) (Regionally Important Geological and Geomorphological Sites)

ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats

ENV3 – Green Infrastructure Network

ENV4 – Heritage Assets (including an Area of Archaeological Interest)

ENV5 – Flood Risk

ENV10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting

ENV11 – The Pattern of Streets and Spaces

ENV12 – The Design and Positioning of Buildings

ENV15 – Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land

ENV16 – Amenity

HOUS1 – Affordable Housing (25% in Portland)

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

COM5 – The Retention of Open Space and Recreational Facilities

COM7 – Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network

COM9 – Parking Standards in New Development

COM10 – The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

SUS2 – Distribution of Development – (Inside Development Boundary)

6.3 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018:

The NPPF has been updated with a revised version published on 23 July, 2018. The following sections and paragraphs are relevant to this Reserved Matters application:

Page 120 1. Introduction 2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Decision taking: Paragraph 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5 Year Land Supply

Officers note that where a 5-year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated paragraph 11d i) and ii) of the Framework outlines the implications for how development proposals should be determined. It states that where the (local) development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.4 Other Material Planning Considerations:

LEGISLATIVE CHANGE

On 1 October 2018 the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 (Commencement No 5) Regulations 2018 came into effect. The new order amends, amongst others, sections 72, 73 and 90 of TCPA to refer to section 100ZA (below):

Power to impose conditions on grant of planning permission in England

100ZA Restrictions on power to impose planning conditions in England

The effect of this is that from 1 October 2018, the way in which pre- commencement conditions work changed. LPAs must now obtain the written agreement of the applicant before imposing pre-commencement conditions on a planning permission. In addition, the LPA must notify the applicant in writing of its intention to impose a pre-commencement condition.

Page 121 If the LPA gives notice in writing to the applicant and the applicant does not respond to the notice before the end of the period of 10 working days (beginning with the day after the date on which the notice is given) then it may proceed to impose the pre-commencement condition.

The Government’s intention is that the Act will reduce the time lag between planning permission being granted and work starting on-site.

7.0 HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

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

8.0 PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:

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

Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has previously taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED when considered by the Planning Committee on 6 June, 2018.

The requested now to vary the Section 106 Agreement and amendments to pre-commencement conditions will assist Homes England to accelerate redevelopment and delivery of new homes on this site, including a much needed policy compliant level of affordable housing. This will help meet local needs and “people with certain protected characteristics”.

9. RECOMMENDATION

Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the recently signed Section 106 Agreement to allow: i) demolition of the redundant vacant school buildings prior to triggering the implementation requirements of the agreement, and

Page 122 ii) amend the wording of proposed outline pre-commencement planning conditions to allow demolition of the redundant vacant school buildings prior to the submission of Reserved Matters and commencement of specific stages of new built development, as specified in Appendix 1. iii) New condition 19. to specifically control demolition works as a separate phase of development..

[NOTE: The original schedule of conditions resolved to approve by the Planning Committee on 6 June, 2018 is reproduced as Appendix 2, for ease of reference and comparison]. This results in substituting the wording “Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations” instead of “Before any development is commenced”; or words to similar effect, in conditions 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 15.

APPENDIX 1.

Schedule of Conditions:

1. Application for approval of any 'reserved matter' must be made 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 92 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:

SITE LOCATION PLAN FIGURE 1

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

3. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of 'reserved matters' (that is any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application and which concern the layout, scale, appearance or landscaping) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their subsequent approval.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

Page 123 4. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

5. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Note: There is potential conflict with school keep clear markings which are likely to have been under a TRO and sufficient time and resource should be allowed for the removal of these and the order; a process that can take some time.

6. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of a finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be fully implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.

7. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

Page 124 REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.

8. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include where relevant: (i) proposed finished levels or contours; (ii) means of enclosure; (iii) car parking layouts; (iv) other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; (v) hard surfacing materials; (vi) minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); (vii) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines, etc indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); (viii) retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant, that tree/plant or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective) another tree/plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be replanted in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.

Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.

9. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.

10. The existing natural tree screen on the southern site boundary and hedgerows on and adjoining the eastern site boundary shall be retained and reinforced where necessary in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any such reinforcement shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive following the first occupation of the development and maintained for a period of five years during which time any plants that are found to be dead or dying shall be replaced.

Page 125

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

11. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of a written scheme of investigation and programme of implementation of archaeological work has been submitted to, and approved by the Planning Authority. These works shall be carried out in full as approved. This scheme shall cover archaeological fieldwork together with post-excavation work and publication of the results.

Reason: The site is within a policy area defined as being of potential archaeological interest and to satisfy the Local Plan Policy ENV4 Heritage Assets objectives.

12. Prior to the construction of any estate roads or digging of any new building foundations, details of a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include: • construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) • a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries • timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods • a framework for managing abnormal loads • contractors’ arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage) • wheel cleaning facilities • vehicle cleaning facilities • inspection of the highways serving the site (by the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways) prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the construction phase • a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site • a route plan for all contractors and suppliers to be advised on • temporary traffic management measures where necessary • the development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Reason: to minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network and prevent the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway.

Page 126 13. The development shall not be occupied until the mitigation measures detailed in the approved biodiversity mitigation plan dated 8th January 2018 have been completed in full, subject to modifications to the agreed mitigation plans as a result of the requirements of a European Protected Species Licence, or the results of subsequent bat surveys; together with addressing matters raised by Dorset County Council's Nature Conservation Team (20th February 2018), including identified 'hedgehog friendly' mitigation measures, have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter approved mitigation measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and a protected species.

14. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised, the submitted Travel Plan must be implemented and operational.

REASON: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the site.

15. Prior to the digging of any new building foundations, details and samples of all facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.

16. Before any new foundations are excavated or piling is commenced, the proposed floor levels shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship of the proposed buildings with adjoining properties and/or land, to the adjoining highway and to safeguard the character and amenity of the area.

17. The tree belt on the southern boundary, hedges and wildlife garden/amenity space on the eastern site boundary retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars shall be protected by fencing in accordance with British Standard 5837 before any ground clearance works, equipment,

Page 127 machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and this fencing shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the locality.

18. No retained tree/hedge (ie an existing tree/hedge which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars) shall be cut down, uprooted, or destroyed; nor shall any retained tree/hedge be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any lopping or topping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Works). If any retained tree/hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree/hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.

Reason: To avoid unnecessary loss of trees or hedges which may be of significant amenity value.

19. Prior to the demolition of the former school buildings, details of a Demolition Traffic Management Plan (DTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The DTMP must include: • demolition & construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) • a programme of demolition works, including hours of operation and anticipated trips removing demolition material • timings of vehicle movements so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods • a framework for managing abnormal loads • contractors’ arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage) • wheel cleaning facilities • vehicle cleaning facilities

Page 128 • inspection of the highways serving the site (by the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways) prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the demolition phase • a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site • a route plan for all contractors to be advised on • temporary traffic management measures where necessary • the demolition must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Demolition Traffic Management Plan. Reason: To minimise adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents; the likely impact of demolition traffic on the surrounding highway network and prevent the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway.

INFORMATIVE NOTES:

1) National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 186 &187 Statement In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: i) offering a pre-application advice service, and ii) as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted. This permission is subject to an agreement made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dated November 15 2018

2) 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.

NOTE: The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at

Page 129 Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

1. Carriageways should be minimum 5 metres; first 30 metres should be 5.5 metres wide 2. Footways should be a minimum of 2 metres. 3. Kerb alignment of access road appears to be dog-legged and eastern most side. 4. Allocated parking not permitted in highway. 5. Footways should be contiguous with carriageway. 6. Perpendicular parking requires 6 metre distance from opposite kerb line. 7. Pedestrian routes must be continuous e.g. not possible to walk to plots on eastern site of development. 8. 2 metre visibility strip required around central island.

Please note if the road is to be kept as private (i.e. not offered for adoption) provision should be made for an adequately sized bin store or agreement should be reached with the refuse collection operator to permit refuse vehicles access to the private routes. The following informative would also then be relevant.

3) 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: If the applicant wishes to offer for adoption any highways drainage to DCC, they should contact DCC Highway’s Development team at [email protected] as soon as possible to ensure that any highways drainage proposals meet DCC’s design requirements

4) Demolition Works

Page 130 Please ensure that the Environment Agency and Health & Safety Executive are made aware of this application and proposed demolition and any formal guidance produced by either enforcing body is referred to during the demolition phase of the development. This demolition is likely to have significant effects upon the environment and residents. I strongly advise that the Developer produces a Method Statement for the demolition stage of the development. This Statement must include arrangements for protecting the environment and residents from Noise, Vibration and Dust. The statement shall also include proposed provisions for the removal of any potentially hazardous waste found / generated on site. The Method Statement shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the demolition. Due to the close vicinity of existing residential dwellings to this site, the Demolition Method Statement (where appropriate) and construction works should have regard to the following to protect residents from nuisance:  No bonfires to be held on site at any time.  Hours of demolition and construction are to be limited to

Monday – Friday 0700 – 1900 Saturday 0900 – 1300 No activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays

 If there are to be any proposed deviations from these hours, please contact Environmental Protection to discuss.  Start up and movement of vehicles / equipment etc will be limited to 30 minutes prior to the hours of construction only.  To minimise disturbance, broadband alarm or video shall be fitted to works vehicles instead of the conventional beepers when reversing.  Activities which may give rise to dust shall be controlled, as far as practicable, to minimise dust emissions. This must include controlling dust from regularly trafficked road areas. Dust suppression may be achieved using water and locating equipment and machinery, away from residential areas.  At all times, a contact telephone number shall be displayed on site for members of the public to use to raise issues. A named person will also be provided to Environmental Health in order for contact to be made should complaints be received.  Any waste arising at the site shall be appropriately segregated and controlled prior to its removal by an appropriately licensed contractor. Any waste arising from the activity which could potentially be contaminated in any way shall also be segregated again, and removed appropriately. Environmental Health must be informed if this occurs.  The use of any radio / amplified music system on site must be kept at a level not to cause annoyance to noise sensitive premises

Page 131 beyond the boundary of the site.  Any future sub-contractors to the site shall be made aware of, and comply with any guidelines/conditions relating to site management of emissions of noise, dust, smoke, fumes etc, made in as part of the determination of this application.  Letter drops to adjacent residents in close proximity should be considered as part of the Demolition / Construction phase to give a minimum of 48 hours notice of any exceptional activities proposed ______APPENDIX 2

Committee resolved 6 June, 2018

Decision: that subject to the National Planning Casework Unit confirming that they do not wish to call-in the application, delegate to the Head of Planning to approve subject to the completion of a Section106 Agreement to secure: I. A policy compliant level of affordable housing; II. Provision of a development management company to ensure the retention and maintenance of existing site landscape features, and III. The inclusion of additional conditions outlined and presented to the committee on the day

And subject to the conditions outlined in the appendix to these minutes:

Conditions:

1. Application for approval of any 'reserved matter' must be made 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 92 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:

SITE LOCATION PLAN FIGURE 1

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

3. Before any development is commenced details of 'reserved matters' (that is any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the

Page 132 application and which concern the layout, scale, appearance or landscaping) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their subsequent approval.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 4(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

4. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

5. No development shall commence until details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

Note: There is potential conflict with school keep clear markings which are likely to have been under a TRO and sufficient time and resource should be allowed for the removal of these and the order; a process that can take some time.

6. No development shall take place until a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.

REASON: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.

7. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in

Page 133 accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.

8. Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include where relevant: (i) proposed finished levels or contours; (ii) means of enclosure; (iii) car parking layouts; (iv) other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; (v) hard surfacing materials; (vi) minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); (vii) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines, etc indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); (viii) retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant, that tree/plant or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective) another tree/plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be replanted in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.

Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.

9. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.

10. The existing natural tree screen on the southern site boundary and hedgerows on and adjoining the eastern site boundary shall be retained and reinforced where necessary in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to

Page 134 and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any such reinforcement shall be carried out during the planting season October/March inclusive following the first occupation of the development and maintained for a period of five years during which time any plants that are found to be dead or dying shall be replaced.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality.

11. No works shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant to, and approved by the Planning Authority. This scheme shall cover archaeological fieldwork together with post-excavation work and publication of the results.

Reason: The site is within a policy area defined as being of potential archaeological interest and to satisfy the Local Plan Policy ENV4 Heritage Assets objectives.

12. Before the development hereby approved is commenced a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include: • construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) • a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries • timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods • a framework for managing abnormal loads • contractors’ arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage) • wheel cleaning facilities • vehicle cleaning facilities • inspection of the highways serving the site (by the developer (or his contractor) and Dorset Highways) prior to work commencing and at regular, agreed intervals during the construction phase • a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site • a route plan for all contractors and suppliers to be advised on • temporary traffic management measures where necessary • the development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Page 135 Reason: To minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network and prevent the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway.

13. The development shall not be occupied until the mitigation measures detailed in the approved biodiversity mitigation plan dated 8th January 2018 have been completed in full, subject to modifications to the agreed mitigation plans as a result of the requirements of a European Protected Species Licence, or the results of subsequent bat surveys; together with addressing matters raised by Dorset County Council's Nature Conservation Team (20th February 2018), including identified 'hedgehog friendly' mitigation measures, have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter approved mitigation measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of nature conservation and a protected species.

14. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised, the submitted Travel Plan must be implemented and operational.

REASON: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the site.

15. Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details and samples of all facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.

16. Before any foundations are excavated or piling is commenced, the proposed floor levels shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Page 136 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship of the proposed buildings with adjoining properties and/or land, to the adjoining highway and to safeguard the character and amenity of the area.

17. The tree belt on the southern boundary, hedges and wildlife garden/amenity space on the eastern site boundary retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars shall be protected by fencing in accordance with British Standard 5837 before any ground clearance works, equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and this fencing shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the locality.

18. No retained tree/hedge (ie an existing tree/hedge which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars) shall be cut down, uprooted, or destroyed; nor shall any retained tree/hedge be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any lopping or topping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998 (Tree Works). If any retained tree/hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree/hedge of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted in the same place in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.

Reason: To avoid unnecessary loss of trees or hedges which may be of significant amenity value.

INFORMATIVE NOTES:

1) National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 186 &187 Statement In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by: xiv) offering a pre-application advice service, and

Page 137 xv) as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

The applicant was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted. This permission is subject to an agreement made pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 dated November 15 2018

2) 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.

NOTE: The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact 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.

1. Carriageways should be minimum 5 metres; first 30 metres should be 5.5 metres wide 2. Footways should be a minimum of 2 metres. 3. Kerb alignment of access road appears to be dog-legged and eastern most side. 4. Allocated parking not permitted in highway. 5. Footways should be contiguous with carriageway. 6. Perpendicular parking requires 6 metre distance from opposite kerb line. 7. Pedestrian routes must be continuous e.g. not possible to walk to plots on eastern site of development. 8. 2 metre visibility strip required around central island.

Please note if the road is to be kept as private (i.e. not offered for adoption) provision should be made for an adequately sized bin store or agreement should be reached with the refuse collection operator to permit refuse vehicles access to the private routes. The following informative would also then be relevant.

3) Advance Payments Code

Page 138

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: If the applicant wishes to offer for adoption any highways drainage to DCC, they should contact DCC Highway’s Development team at [email protected] as soon as possible to ensure that any highways drainage proposals meet DCC’s design requirements

4) Demolition Works

Please ensure that the Environment Agency and Health & Safety Executive are made aware of this application and proposed demolition and any formal guidance produced by either enforcing body is referred to during the demolition phase of the development. This demolition is likely to have significant effects upon the environment and residents. I strongly advise that the Developer produces a Method Statement for the demolition stage of the development. This Statement must include arrangements for protecting the environment and residents from Noise, Vibration and Dust. The statement shall also include proposed provisions for the removal of any potentially hazardous waste found / generated on site. The Method Statement shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the demolition. Due to the close vicinity of existing residential dwellings to this site, the Demolition Method Statement (where appropriate) and construction works should have regard to the following to protect residents from nuisance:  No bonfires to be held on site at any time.  Hours of demolition and construction are to be limited to

Monday – Friday 0700 – 1900 Saturday 0900 – 1300 No activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays

 If there are to be any proposed deviations from these hours, please contact Environmental Protection to discuss.

Page 139  Start up and movement of vehicles / equipment etc will be limited to 30 minutes prior to the hours of construction only.  To minimise disturbance, broadband alarm or video shall be fitted to works vehicles instead of the conventional beepers when reversing.  Activities which may give rise to dust shall be controlled, as far as practicable, to minimise dust emissions. This must include controlling dust from regularly trafficked road areas. Dust suppression may be achieved using water and locating equipment and machinery, away from residential areas.  At all times, a contact telephone number shall be displayed on site for members of the public to use to raise issues. A named person will also be provided to Environmental Health in order for contact to be made should complaints be received.  Any waste arising at the site shall be appropriately segregated and controlled prior to its removal by an appropriately licensed contractor. Any waste arising from the activity which could potentially be contaminated in any way shall also be segregated again, and removed appropriately. Environmental Health must be informed if this occurs.  The use of any radio / amplified music system on site must be kept at a level not to cause annoyance to noise sensitive premises beyond the boundary of the site.  Any future sub-contractors to the site shall be made aware of, and comply with any guidelines/conditions relating to site management of emissions of noise, dust, smoke, fumes etc, made in as part of the determination of this application.  Letter drops to adjacent residents in close proximity should be considered as part of the Demolition / Construction phase to give a minimum of 48 hours notice of any exceptional activities proposed

______

Page 140 Agenda Item 12

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00744/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: WEYMOUTH SEAFRONT, THE ESPLANADE, WEYMOUTH

PROPOSAL: Installation of artistic lighting to 31 no. existing lighting columns

APPLICANT: Weymouth & Portland Borough Council

CASE OFFICER: Clare McCarthy

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Tia Roos; Cllr Jason Osborne; Cllr Francis Drake

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve – subject to conditions

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The site comprises the line of The Esplanade from a point in the north at the old pier running south along the length of The Esplanade to a point opposite the front elevation of the Pavilion Theatre. The site relates to existing lamp standards sited at intervals along this route. The Esplanade is the main pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare serving Weymouth Seafront; and, is used for a range of seaside activities by local residents and visitors to the town. The site lies within the Defined Development Boundary for Weymouth, and the Weymouth Conservation Area. The southern part of the site lies within the Weymouth Town Centre Area; and, entirely within the Town Centre Strategy Area.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 The proposal involves the installation of an artistic lighting scheme along Weymouth Promenade from the Pier Bandstand to the Peninsula. This would be through the addition to existing SAPA columns of an LED strip with aluminium housing and fixing brackets. Two lighting column types are employed along the sites length. These are Column Types 1 and 2. Both column types are of modern design, and metal construction with a galvanised finish.

2.2 Both Column Types are approximately 10.9m from base to tip, and 9.9m to the highways bracket and lamp. Column Type 2 has a second a similar lamp set at mid-column level approximately 5.9m above ground level.

2.3 The proposals are to attach LED (Light Emitting Diode) low energy, artistic lighting in the form of lighting strips, vertically, to each of the 31 No. columns. The artistic component is the design of the scenes – the ‘mood’ lighting. The lights are all inter-connected via radio receivers so that they can be programmed to change colour in a variety of sequences and colour co-ordinations to provide ‘mood’ lighting, along the length of the Esplanade during the hours of darkness.

Page 141 The lights will be timed, with times of illumination varying to reflect the seasons and any public events that may occur along The Esplanade.

2.5 In respect of Column Type 1, each column will have 1 No. LED strip added to it. Each strip measuring 6.0m long, commencing at a height above ground of approximately 2.9m and topping out at approximately 8.9m.

2.6 In respect of the Column Type 2, each column will have 2 No. LED strips added to it – one attached to the column above the mid-height light and one set below. The total length of the 2 separate strips will be 6.0m. The gap between them will be approximately 0.1m. Wiring between the strips will be contained within a fabricated aluminium housing.

2.7 An antenna is to be fixed to each column at the top of each lighting strip to receive signal instructions. 4 No. stainless steel fixing bands will be used to secure each LED strip to the lighting columns.

2.8 Specification for the submitted lighting details: “The proposed lighting scheme uses RGB (red, green, blue) LED (light emitting diodes) in lengths of 6m strips, which produce a lower level of Lumen compared to the existing pedestrian and highways lighting columns. The use of RGB has been used to provide a contrast to the warmer way finding light, creating a higher vibrancy seen from afar, displaying the artwork as one. The specified LED will transmit a lumen range of 150 - 400 lm / m.

The speed of the lighting scenes transitioning from column to column as well as vertically along the 6m strip has been carefully considered to be a slow moving, gentle transition to avoid a flicking display. The programmable light will be in 200mm increments along the 6m length, to produce blocks of lights rather than a high quantity of smaller pixelated light, which would create a more flashing display.

The high quality LED strips will be specified with high frequency (hertz) emitting control gear to ensure that consistent light is produced and does not fall within a frequency that could evoke seizures.

Whilst the scenes vary in display, any additional new scenes to the schedule would be programmed in the same language and style in regards to speed and colour of the initial primary displays as part of this planning application.”

2.9 Community Consultation

2.10 There have been various occasions when public consultation has been conducted in order to inform the design and extent of the lighting scheme. Such events have included:

Page 142 • 25/8/17 and 20/9/17 - A twenty-six day period of public consultation between to inform the public of the project, and to understand community aspirations in order to shape the project with respect to colour, shape and movement of the new scheme. • 17/4/18 – 24/4/18 Intensive Stakeholder Engagement – Focus Group and Schools, Tonkin Liu, Bounce Back Arts; and, Dorset Coast Forum to gain feedback on initial concepts and shape the final design. • 18-19/05/18 – Public exhibition of concepts to gain feedback and comment on final shape of design • 27/6/18 ‘Speaking up for Dorset’ session – scheme further outlined. • 29/6/18 Outreach Drop-in session at the Waverly Centre for young people & adults (&their carers) with disabilities – Both sessions to gain feedback of concept for final design.

2.11 A Lighting Trial was conducted on 31 July 2018, this involved a pre-meeting commencing at 21:00 followed by a site visit where a demonstration LED strip on one column was switched on between 21:45 and 22:00. The purpose was to facilitate Members discussion and to provide a message to passers-by in that Officers were showing Members and Decision Makers on Committee’s the proposed design, on one column, advising that the full display and artwork would cover approximately 30-35 columns and have many more colour shows and scenes. This was a one-off demonstration (temporarily fixed in place) from a prospective supplier, who loaned the materials and programmed the software with no expectation of winning a contract for the supply and installation of the lighting.

2.12 The lighting trial was also reported on the Council’s website ‘Dorsetforyou’.

2.13 The application is obliged to be reported to the Planning Committee for decision because it is a Borough Council scheme.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

3.1.1 None of direct relevance. However, the following notes on the sites history are taken from the published Public Art/Design Brief – November 2017 – Ref. WSFL4601 (WPBC).

“The official Olympics Sailing Events were held in the Borough of Weymouth and Portland in 2012. In preparation for this major event, Weymouth Sea Front underwent a series of public realm improvements including a scheme to de- clutter the promenade and renew highways lighting. This which saw the removal of blue and white Victorian lamp columns in Zone 2, to make way for the contemporary, stainless steel ‘Hestia’ columns, which have now replaced them. The Victorian lamp columns removed from Zone 2 - along with those of the same

Page 143 design already situated in Zone 1 - were refurbished and returned to the promenade along the length of Zone 1.

A new ‘laser lighting scheme’ by artists Vong Phaophanit and Claire Oboussier was also installed in readiness for the 2012 Olympics. This intervention of seven, 14 metre high columns is situated at intervals along the length of the promenade’s Zone 2. Each column’s surface area is finished in a different colour with a corresponding vertical coloured strip light built into its structure and a laser unit housed at the top of each column. The lasers are programmed to perform a display - directed out to sea - for 6 minutes out of every 60, during the hours of darkness

The laser columns and their display replaced the old catenary lighting system - referred to locally, as ‘the fairy lights’ - which had previously been installed along Zones 1 and 2. There are early records of ‘fairy lamps’ having been installed along the promenade and at Nothe Gardens (across the mouth of the harbour), to mark the Diamond Jubilee Celebrations of Queen Victoria in 1897. The use of this type of temporary catenary lighting was made more permanent in Weymouth during the 1950s

However, by the start of the c.21st this traditional form of lighting had become expensive for WPBC to maintain (c. £8,000 per annum), as it used outdated glass bulbs, which were prone to vandalism and had become increasingly hard to replace. The catenary lighting was therefore decommissioned in 2011 to make way for the introduction of the laser lighting display as described above.”

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES :

4.1 National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF has been updated with a revised version published on 23 July, 2018. As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Paragraph 11 advises of the ‘Presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Section 12 ‘Achieving well designed places’ indicates that all development to be of a high quality in design, and the relationship and visual impact of it to be compatible with the surroundings. In particular, and amongst other things, Paragraphs 124 – 132 advise that:

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.

It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design

Page 144 for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Further advice contained in the following sections of the NPPF is of relevance: Section 6 – Building a strong, competitive economy; Section 7 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres; Section 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment ;

Paragragh 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The development plan for the West Dorset planning area comprises the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015. In the Local Plan the following policies are relevant to this proposal:

• INT1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development • ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of geological Interest • ENV4 – Heritage Assets • ENV5 – Flood Risk • ENV10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting • ENV 16 – Amenity • ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities • COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities • WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy • WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area • WEY5 – The Esplanade (South) • WEY6 – Ferry Peninsula

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS :

5.1 Weymouth Town Centre Masterplan SPD – including Weymouth Town Centre Flood Relief Scheme.

Page 145

5.2 Weymouth Conservation Area Appraisal

6. HUMAN RIGHTS:

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

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

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:

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

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

8. CONSULTATIONS :

8.1 Dorset CC - Highways - As detailed discussions have been held with the Street Lighting Manager and the proposals meet with his approval the County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION.

8.2 WPBC Conservation – Support – The Conservation Officer comments that: “The effort to unify the lighting scheme to the entire seafront is to be applauded.”

8.3 WPBC Environmental Health – Replies: ‘No comment.’

8.4 WPBC Leisure and Events Manager – No objection.00744/FUL

8.5 WPBC Landscape Officer - No objection – The Landscape Officer comments: I do not anticipate that the proposed scheme will significantly impact upon landscape character or visual amenity.

9. REPRESENTATIONS :

Page 146

9.1 Ten letters of representation have been received from neighbours/third parties. 3 writers comment on the proposals; 2 support them; and, 6 object to them. The comments received are precised and outlined below:

Comment: - The proposals were considered at the recent meeting of the Access Group. Members will have differing views on the proposals, and have the opportunity to comment individually, but the comments of the Access Group are only related to Accessibility Issues related to how people with different disabilities may be affected. The Borough Council is to be congratulated on obtaining a detailed Equalities Impact Assessment for the proposals and for making revisions to the proposed lighting programmes on the basis of that advice. It is further noted that the lighting programme will be monitored and adjustments may be made if deemed beneficial. - So, many reservations but some hope, on balance, that just once, WPBC will accomplish something. - What is needed is for the street lighting to be changed from glaring white to a soft white light. This would allow decorative lights to be seen on the seafront. The decorative lights need to be located on posts on the pavement boundary to the beach not on the boundary to the road. The benefit would be illumination of the beach and the decorative lights not competing with the street lights. - Concern is about the lighting scenes. Because the lighting system is extremely flexible and the lighting control system and programming is flexible, there is a risk that, at some time in the future after planning permission has been granted, be it during the "developed design" stage or years later, the 'approved lighting scenes' are added to or changed to scenes that are, in the worst case scenario, flashing, brash and glaring. It might be possible to mitigate this risk by a planning condition.

- Lack of technical information about the proposed amount and intensity of light to be emitted. - Lack of technical information about ‘flashing’ and ‘flickering’.

- Conditions should be applied to cover these above two aspects of the development

Support: - Having viewed demos and attended early meetings, I would support the application in general. - Fresh and new ideas are sometimes difficult to get across, I appreciate the time and energy put into this project. I like the scheme.

Object:

Page 147 - Object to the application of using the existing laser light columns as they are entirely out of character with the beautiful architecture of the seafront Esplanade. They should be removed to allow for an entirely new scheme to be introduced. - The proposed scheme will look immediately outdated as did the laser lights. - Any scheme utilising these ugly columns will be an eyesore. They should be removed to allow for an entirely new scheme to be introduced. - The lights at 29, 30 face over a road and ruins the overall design. - Object to this downmarket coloured 'tombstone' Lighting Planning Application for Weymouth Seafront as I believe it is unlawful and wrong for the town as it does not reflect the residents wishes, as The Council is duty bound to uphold. - This lighting choice has nothing to do with the majority of Weymouth Residents opinion. - This scheme is trying to be 'steamrollered' through because of time constraints & funding, NOT because it is the chosen design by Weymouth residents. - The Council is not being honest by implying it is the preferred option arrived at through public consultation - this is a falsehood and not a proper reflection or analysis of the public's wishes. - The Council's (previous) choice of the futuristic "Lasers", with their so-called 'veils of light', which were meant to be a fantastic modern featured "improvement" for Weymouth's Seafront, but were in fact a total disaster! - It is not an elegant or effective solution to the problem. - This does not implement the wishes of the majority of the residents of Weymouth who have declared their request for Fairy Lights many times. - This scheme is unsuitable on the grounds that it will spoil the Georgian aspect of the sea side town that Weymouth has enjoyed, spoiling an interesting historic past. - Totally unsuitable and out of character, along with those useless green laser lights. - Object to the use of “standard aluminium housing”, it is well known that aluminium rapidly corrodes in wet salt environments when it is located near or in contacted with other dissimilar metals. I believe these lights will not last their intended life expectancy. - Street lighting and decorative lighting are 2 separate tasks which the council seem to have completely missed.

10. PLANNING ISSUES :

• Principle of development • Purpose of the lighting • Impact on the character of The Esplanade, and Conservation Area • Impacts on users and neighbours amenities; • Commercial Impacts • Public Order

Page 148 11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT :

11.1 Principle of development

11.1.1 The proposal involves the addition of 6.0m LED lighting strips facing out towards the beach to 31 No. existing street lighting columns running along the length of The Esplanade at Weymouth Seafront between the Old Pier and the Pavilion Theatre on Weymouth Peninsula. The use of existing lighting columns for the purpose of lighting is acceptable in principle, and is sustainable. The works, can be argued to be ‘de minimus’ – in that they are of such little consequence – the application of flush-fitting lighting strips to existing lamp standards – are of such small significance, that they do not constitute development; or, that they constitute ‘Permitted Development’, as outlined in Schedule 2, Part 12, Class A. (b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (as amended). Case law indicates that where a scheme may be Permitted Development, or where the applicant chooses not to implement Permitted Development rights, or in this case where it can be considered that the proposal is ‘de minimis’, the applicant is at liberty to make a planning application for his/her proposed development. The Council has chosen to follow this course of action here in respect of the works to add LED lighting strips to the existing lamp standards along the length of the Esplanade because of the cumulative visual impact that the lighting strips will have when illuminated on the night sky in the context of Weymouth Seafront. It has chosen to do this in the public interest and the interests of transparency. In this respect the principle of development is accepted, and the proposals accord with the provisions of Policy INT1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development - contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015.

11.2 Purpose of the lighting

11.2.1 This is for public amenity, and to improve the visual experience of The Esplanade; Seafront; and, in part, Weymouth Town Centre during the hours of darkness. The lighting will emphasise the line of the Seafront/Esplanade as seen from the beach against the backdrop of Georgian terraced dwellings and hotels, many of which are Grade II Listed and are set within Weymouth Conservation Area. They will further add to the overall character and visual impact of the seafront when viewed from afar such as from the tip of Weymouth Peninsula; the Nothe Fort and White Nothe; and, from further afield in respect of long distance views from Portland to the south across Portland Harbour; and, Bowleaze Cove to the east. The proposed development meets the corporate objectives of the Borough Council which are to improve the quality of the built environment and Weymouth Seafront experience as outlined in Policies ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities; COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities; WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy; WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area; WEY5 – The Esplanade (South); and, WEY6 – Ferry Peninsula - contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice in the NPPF.

Page 149 11.3 Impact on the character of The Esplanade, Conservation Area, and setting of Listed Buildings

11.3.1 No additional clutter is added to the beach front, maintaining its strong Georgian characteristic, whilst adding an exciting and colourful visual illumination at night. The iconic Victorian columns seen throughout the Greenhill area will not be used in the installation of the artwork to protect their history. The various public consultation and design exercises have resulted in light fittings that are discreet and face the seafront so they are not altering the setting of backdrop of the listed terraces; and, the built form of development that defines this aspect of the Weymouth Conservation Area. The lights face outwards towards the sea and will reflect off the water. They would not reflect off the buildings, particularly the Georgian terraces along the Esplanade. The vertical emphasis relating to the physical length of the lighting reflects the length of the seaside frontage buildings along the 31 No. Lighting Columns to enhance the setting of the seafront.

11.3.2 The character and setting of the Conservation Area; and, Setting of the Listed Buildings along The Esplanade; which are set back on the opposite side of the road carriageway, are divorced from the line of lamp columns and display of lighting from the LED strips – there is a distinct difference between the two. This difference is reflected in the lack of objection on landscape grounds from the Landscape Officer; and, the positive comments and support for the proposals received from the Conservation Officer.

11.3.3 The comments received from neighbours and third parties in relation to the retention and use of the existing lamp columns and design and visual impact of the lighting when in operation, are noted. There is no direct comparison to the previous laser light scheme as the LED strips are fixed to each light column and emit a low level of light in situ rather than projecting light outwards in a beam.in contrast to the laser light scheme, the impact of the light strips is cumulative, and understated with their visual effect being generated by their numbers – 31 – and the programmable, soft, slow changing, coloured, static light that they will emit. The lights can be programmed/timed to reflect the changing seasons and variation in lighting up times experienced throughout the year. The scheme has been demonstrated in public, both to gauge public reaction and to provide Council Members with an idea of the impact of the LED strips individually; and, an indication of what the cumulative effect and impact of them would be along the line of the 31 No. Light Columns. On stepping inside the line of the lighting columns between the line of lights, road carriageway and building line, the lights will be unobtrusive as they will be screened from direct views when standing behind them by the lamp columns on which they are mounted. Only angled views owing to the curve of the beach and The Esplanade will be on offer to observers.

11.3.4 During daylight hours the LED strips will all but be indiscernible as they will be mounted on the seaward side of each the 31 No. Light Columns. Other than for testing, repair or replacement, the light strips will not be used in daylight and their will be no discernible impact on the character of the street scene.

Page 150

11.3.5 Officers consider that the lighting scheme is acceptable. It will enhance the visual quality and experience of The Esplanade, Seafront, and western part of the Peninsula. Overall, the proposed lighting scheme will enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area seafront and will not impact on the character and setting of nearby Listed Buildings. As such, the proposed development accords with the provisions of Policies ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest; ENV4 – Heritage Assets; and, ENV10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting, contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice in the NPPF.

11.4 Impacts on users and neighbours amenities

11.4.1 Planning considerations relate to issues of any possible light pollution; and, to the environmental impacts on pedestrians, traffic or the setting of the Conservation Area and Coastline. The brightness of the lighting, and the principle of its movement through sequencing and its physical casing are all relevant considerations.

11.4.2 The lighting scenes themselves are simply a rotation of colour sequences up and down a slim tube which appears similar to a slim fluorescent tube, with the LED strips being attached to the front of the lighting columns facing the sea. The changes in the colour sequence and timing creates no noise and the display is one of subtle and softened lighting. The LED strips are not like laser lights or neon lighting in that they they do not flash or glare. They have been designed to be compatible for exposure to people with light sensitivity health conditions.

11.4.3 A specification for the maximum number of lumens (light intensity) that would be displayed on each light column, and how that number relates to the health considerations about glare and flicker or flashing, has been sought (see section 2 above). This specification in terms of the maximum number of lumens can and should be conditioned.

11.4.4 The light strips and their siting have also been considered to account for those who are visually impaired so that they can recognise the position of the lighting columns and the height of the lighting strips attached to them, and so should be able to take account of them as the move along The Esplanade.

11.4.5 No objections have been received from Dorset County Council – Highways – and there are no impacts in respect of pedestrian and road safety. In this regard the proposal accords with the advice contained in Policy ENV16 – Amenity – in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice in the NPPF.

11.5 Commercial Impacts

Page 151 11.5.1 Officers consider that the lighting scheme will enhance visitors experience of the Seafront and be of benefit to the night-time economy in that it will complement existing tourist attractions and facilities; enhance organised events; and, lead to sustained patronage of shops, restaurants, and public houses and other public amenities and facilities commensurate with Weymouth as commercial centre and tourist destination. This accords with the provisions of Policies ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities; COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities; WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy; WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area; WEY5 – The Esplanade (South); and, WEY6 – Ferry Peninsula – contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice in the NPPF.

11.6 Public Order

11.6.1 No objections have been received in respect of the impact of the scheme on public order, or that it will give rise to an increase in anti-social behaviour. The proposal is acceptable in this regard and accords with WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy; WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area; WEY5 – The Esplanade (South); and, WEY6 – Ferry Peninsula – contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice in the NPPF.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY :

12.1 The application is acceptable. The proposed lighting scheme will enhance the visitor experience of The Esplanade; Weymouth Seafront and The Peninsula, and benefit local residents and the evening economy. It will not harm the character of the Conservation Area; or, adversely impact on the character and setting of nearby Listed Buildings. Planning permission for it should be granted.

13. RECOMMENDATION: Approve – subject to conditions.

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

LOCATION PLAN - Drawing Number 520 000c COLUMNS 1-9 SITE PLAN - Drawing Number (520 001c) COLUMNS 10 -19 SITE PLAN - Drawing Number (520 002c) COLUMNS 20-31 SITE PLAN - Drawing Number (520 003c) LIGHTING DIRECTION COLUMNS 1 TO 9 - Drawing Number (520 500) LIGHTING DIRECTION COLUMNS 10 TO 19 - Drawing Number (520 501) LIGHTING DIRECTION COLUMNS 20-31 - Drawing Number (520 502) COLUMN TYPES 1 AND 2 - Drawing Number (520 020c) COLUMN TYPE 1 DETAILS - Drawing Number (520 105) COLUMN TYPE 2 DETAILS - Drawing Number (520 106) FITTING DETAILS - Drawing Number (520 301) FIXING DETAILS - Drawing Number (520 302)

Page 152

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

2. 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).

3. No lighting column shall display lights that flash, glare or flicker. The maximum intensity of LED light displayed on each column shall not exceed 400 lumens/metre .

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and pubic safety.

Page 153 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00397/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: 6 WHITE HORSE DRIVE, WEYMOUTH, DT3 6BZ

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3no. detached houses

APPLICANT: Jolliffe Builders Ltd

CASE OFFICER: Jennie Roberts

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr H Bruce, Cllr J Farquharson, Cllr I Bruce

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve with conditions

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 The site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Weymouth and within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). It is located at the end of White Horse Drive, a cul-de-sac, and currently forms part of a former orchard, to the rear of no. 6 Sutton Park. The site is surrounded by residential properties located on the following streets: Winslow Road to the north, Sutton Park to the east, White Horse Drive to the south and Sutton Road to the west.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: 2.1 This application proposes the erection of 3no. detached houses with garages, details as below. Amended plans were submitted to increase the parking allocation for two of the dwellings which is included below:

 Unit 1: three-bedroom, two-storey dwelling with attached garage and 1no. parking space.  Unit 2: three-bedroom, two-storey dwelling with room in the roof, served by dormer windows. Detached garage and 2no. parking spaces.  Unit 3: four-bedroom, two-storey dwelling, with detached garage and 2no. parking spaces.

2.2 Materials are proposed to be rendered and brick walls under concrete tile roofs.

2.3 Each dwelling will have a modest-sized private garden.

2.4 A turning area, which has been widened in the amended plans, has been provided to allow vehicles to exit the development in a forward gear onto White Horse Drive.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: 3.1 None

Page 155

4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Chapter 2 – Achieving sustainable development Chapter 4 – Decision-making Chapter 5 – Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 6 – Building a strong, competitive economy Chapter 11 – Making effective use of land Chapter 12 – Achieving well-designed places Chapter 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

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

Env1. Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest Env10 . The landscape and townscape setting Env11. The pattern of streets and spaces Env12. The design and positioning of buildings Env13. Achieving high levels of environmental performance Env15. Efficient and appropriate use of land Env16. Amenity Hous1. Affordable housing Com1. Making sure new development makes suitable provision for community infrastructure Com7. Creating a safe and efficient transport network Com9. Parking standards in new development

5.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:  Dorset AONB Management Plan

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

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

Page 156

7.0 PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

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

8.0 CONSULTATIONS: 8.1 DCC Highways – no objections, both to the original plans (showing 1no. parking space for each dwelling), and the amended plans (showing 2no. parking spaces for two of the dwellings and wider garages and turning area), subject to conditions.

8.2 DCP Tree Officer – Trees at this site are of little consequence in that they would not be considered worthy of protection with the imposition of a Tree Preservation Order.

9.0 REPRESENTATIONS: 9.1 Objections have been lodged by 11 members of the public. Concerns are as follows:

 Units 2 & 3 are close to the boundary of dwellings in Winslow Road and will overlook their windows and gardens, causing an unacceptable loss of privacy. Additionally, the proposed houses will prevent winter sunlight from entering the windows/sunroom to the rear of the properties, creating a depressing outlook.  The properties in Winslow Road are of single storey height, and the overly tall proposed houses will overshadow them.  White Horse Drive is not suitable as an access route into a construction site. Construction vehicles could cause road blockages and damage to cars parked in the road. The parking of construction vehicles in White Horse Drive will result in access problems for existing properties. There will be deposits of construction material along the road, which will cause soiling and possible pollution to existing properties. The presence of these vehicles will also result in a loss of privacy. A construction management plan should be conditioned if permission is granted.  The parking spaces and garages, as shown on the amended plans, do not comply with the size recommendations as set out in the Bournemouth, Poole and Dorset Residential Car Parking Study. Additionally, the recommended number of spaces has not been met (the guidelines suggest a minimum of 7 spaces for the proposed development, whereas the application proposes 5).

Page 157  The proposed layout is cramped, and does nothing to respect and preserve the established character of the locality. It crates a cramped living environment for future occupants, with poor amenity space.  The design of the dwellings is out of keeping with the surrounding area.  There are existing problems with parking along White Horse Drive, and this scheme will only exacerbate these problems. Additionally, the proposed development could put local children, who play outside their houses, in danger.  No heritage assessment or statement has been submitted; the site is within 100m of the boundary of the Sutton Poyntz Conservation Area; there are listed buildings nearby and consideration should be given to the potential presence of buried archaeological features and deposits.  There is no turning circle for vehicles.  There are bats, newts and grass snakes in this area and the proposed development could have a negative impact on their populations.

10.0 PLANNING ISSUES:  Principle of development  Design  Residential amenity  Access and Parking  Loss of open space  CIL  Affordable Housing  Other

11.0 PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of development The proposal is for the erection of three dwellings on land inside the Defined Development Boundary, so there is ‘in principle’ support.

However, the Council cannot at present demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land (albeit only marginally under at 4.94 years) for both West Dorset District and Weymouth and Portland Borough, and this has some bearing on the consideration of the proposals.

In the NPPF (July, 2018), Section 2 – Achieving sustainable development – and the sub-section titled ‘The presumption in favour of sustainable development’ - paragraph 11 outlines the Government’s objectives for ‘Plan making’ and ‘Decision taking’.

11. Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. For plan-making this means that:

Page 158 - plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change - Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:  The application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or  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.

For decision-taking this means:  approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; or  where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date7, granting permission unless: o the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or o 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.

The sub-note 7of the NPPF is of relevance and advises:

This includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites (with the appropriate buffer, as set out in paragraph 73); or where the Housing Delivery Test indicates that the delivery of housing was substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the previous three years. Transitional arrangements for the Housing Delivery Test are set out in Annex 1.”

Having regard to Paragraph 11 of the NPPF (2018), the adverse impacts of granting planning consent for the proposed development (as described below, under ‘design’ and ‘residential amenity’) are not considered to “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits [a net increase of 3no. dwellings], when assessed against the policies in this Framework (NPPF) taken as a whole.”

11.2 Design

Page 159 There are a wide variety of housing designs in the surrounding areas, including single-storey and two-storey dwellings, and a mix of materials; stone features quite significantly, although brick, render and timber cladding can also been seen. There is a mix of slate, clay and concrete tiled roofs in the area. This application proposes the erection of 3no. detached two-storey houses, all of which have a different design, but all of which are proposed to be constructed of brick and rendered walls under concrete tile roofs. It is considered that the unique designs of the proposed dwellings add interest to the scheme.

Objections have been made stating that the layout is too cramped, and is detrimental to the character of the surrounding area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the gardens for the proposed dwellings are not large, it is felt that they are of a sufficient size so as not to give rise to a cramped form of development. It is considered that the scheme has a satisfactory layout that is not detrimental to the visual amenity of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in which the site lies.

11.3 Residential amenity A number of objections have been received stating that the proposed development will result in the loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings. Unit 1 has two first floor and one second floor bedroom windows on the rear, looking towards the rear of the properties on Winslow Road. However, these are more than 30m away from the properties behind, and at an oblique angle, and therefore no direct overlooking of their windows will occur. Similarly, Unit 3 is more than 30m away from the property to the rear, and whilst it has three first floor windows in the rear elevation, two of these will be conditioned to be obscure glazed, whilst the other serves a stairwell. The first floor window in the west elevation of Unit 2 will also be conditioned to be obscure glazed, as it serves an en-suite bathroom. Having regard to the positioning of the fenestration and the distances between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring properties, it is considered that the scheme will not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

Concerns have also been raised that the proposed dwellings will overshadow the single storey dwellings in Winslow Road, resulting in the loss of light. However, given that there is a distance of over 30m between the proposed and existing dwellings, and that the heights of Units 2 and 3 are c.9m and 8m respectively, no overshadowing of the existing dwellings will occur.

In terms of the proposed dwellings themselves, concerns have been raised that the garden areas are too small to provide adequate outdoor amenity space for future occupiers. However, whilst admittedly not large, it is considered that they provide adequate space for dwellings of this size.

It is considered that the proposed development has an acceptable impact on the residential amenity of both the neighbouring properties and the dwellings themselves.

Page 160 11.4 Access and parking Concerns have been raised by members of the public about the access and parking arrangements. However, the Highway Authority is satisfied with the proposal (subject to a condition), saying:

“Following the submission of the earlier County Highway observations I refer to revised plan 1201/03B of the above application for which standard conditions have already been recommended and still apply.

However, I note the fairly detailed comments on the parking provision and also that this item is now to be decided at planning committee so provide the additional supporting information.

The comments imply that the scheme should have been refused on the basis it doesn’t comply with guidance. However, the guidance on parking that has been referred to isn’t mandatory and isn’t to a nationally adopted standard. The standard UK parking space size is 2.4m x 4.8m. The parking bays proposed here are 2.6m x 5.3m. Recommended internal garage dimensions vary. Garages can and do vary in size and these appear to be to the sizes recommended in DCC’s parking guidance. Even so, such garages are only counted as half a space due to them frequently being used for storage. Interestingly when recommending a refusal of garages having a 2.5m internal width for new houses on the west side of White Horse Drive at an informal hearing, this was lost as the Planning Inspector considered them ‘perfectly adequate’ at the time.

In terms of numbers and allowing half a space for each garage a total of 6 off- road spaces have been provided and another is shown unallocated on the access road giving a total of 7 parking spaces.

Based upon the above facts the County Highway Authority would certainly not recommend refusal on parking grounds.”

As the scheme is supported by the Highway Authority, it is considered that the scheme could not be refused on highways grounds, and that parking and access arrangements are satisfactory. Given the concerns of local residents, it is considered prudent to attach a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to any approval.

11.5 Loss of open space Policy COM5 of the adopted Local Plan states;

The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities i) Development on, or change of use of open spaces of public value and recreational facilities (including school playing fields) will not be permitted unless: • The development proposed is ancillary to the use of the site and the proposal will either support or improve the recreational and amenity value of the

Page 161 site or does not adversely affect the number, size or quality of playing pitches or their use; or • The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the open spaces and recreational facilities (including school playing fields); or • Alternative and/or suitable replacement outdoor or indoor provision of equal or better recreational quality or value is provided in a location which is suitable to meet any deficiency in provision, and/or better placed and accessible to the surrounding community it serves, and there is a clear community benefit; or • It can be demonstrated that the open space, buildings or land are surplus to requirements and there is no need for alternative open space of public value or recreational uses which could reasonably take place at the site. ii) Existing marine based recreational facilities should be retained.

11.9 Clearly the above Policy seeks to retain valued areas of open space of public and community value whereas in fact the application site is simply an undeveloped area of land and a former orchard. Given that the DDB is the focus for new development and Policy ENV15 seeks to make the best efficient and appropriate use of land in such area, together with the housing land supply position, the proposal is considered acceptable such that the loss of the former orchard is acceptable.

11.6 CIL 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 square metre CIL rate.

The development proposal is CIL liable.

The rate at which CIL is charged is £111.60 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development if approved. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations - (Reg. 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted. The estimated charge for this site is £36,781 plus index linking.

11.7 Affordable Housing Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the re-instatement of a Written Ministerial Statement from

Page 162 28 November 2014. National planning policy and national guidance establish thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions will not normally be sought on sites of 10 units or fewer (or with a maximum gross combined floor space of 10,000 square metres of less), outside designated rural areas. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

11.8 Other An objector considers that a heritage statement should have been submitted, as the site is 100m away from a conservation area. However, given this distance, and the site context (surrounded by different, non-listed dwelling types), it would be unreasonable to require that such a statement be submitted. The proposal will not have an impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area. Similarly, the objector is concerned about the possible presence of buried archaeological remains, but since the site is not within a recognised site of archaeological importance, this is not considered to be relevant to this application.

Another objector is concerned about the possible presence of protected species on the site, and the impact the development could have on them. However, the site is not within a Site of Special Scientific Interest, it is within an urban context (with mown grass and domestic gardens surrounding it) and Natural England has not objected to the proposal. It is therefore considered unlikely that any protected species are present, however, a condition can be added to require a survey and mitigation measures if the survey is positive.

12.0 CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

12.1 Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered acceptable and the recommendation is to grant permission subject to the following conditions.

13.0 RECOMMENDATION:

Approve with conditions:

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

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

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

 Location Plan - Drawing Number 1201/01

Page 163  Block plan - Drawing Number 1201/02A  Site Plan - Drawing Number 1201-03A  Proposed Unit 1 - Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 1201/04-A  Proposed Unit 2 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 1201/05  Proposed Unit 3 - Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 1201/06-A  Sections - Drawing Number 1201/07-A  Proposed Garage Unit 2 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 1201/08- A  Proposed Garage Unit 3 Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number 1201/09- A

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

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.

4. No works shall commence above damp proof course level, until details and samples of all facing and roofing materials have been made available on site for inspection and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the windows serving the bathroom and en-suite in the rear (north) elevation of Unit 3 and the window serving the en-suite in the side (west) elevation of Unit 2 hereby approved shall be permanently glazed and maintained thereafter with obscured glass of a minimum obscurity of level 3 and non-opening 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room before the dwelling houses are first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure the privacy of future occupiers.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order) (with or without modification) no extension, alteration, improvement, porches, outbuilding, surfaces permitted by Classes A, B, C, D, E and F of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the 2015 Order shall be erected or constructed, other than those expressly authorised by this permission.

Page 164

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of external amenity space.

7. No works shall commence above damp proof course level until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

8. No works shall commence on site unless the site has been checked for evidence of protected species by a suitably licensed person and the results of that check and any necessary mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall proceed in strict accordance with the approved mitigation measures, unless modifications to meet any requirements of a European Protected Species Licence or as a result of subsequent bat surveys, have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed mitigation measures shall be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of protected species.

9. No works shall commence on site unless a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The CEMP shall provide for:

i) The hours of construction work and deliveries; ii) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii) The loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv) The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v) Wheel washing facilities; vi) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

Reason: In the interests of road safety and to minimise the impact on neighbours' amenity.

10. 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.

Page 165 Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

Informatives: NPPF, CIL, Highways Section 184, Fire Safety

Page 166 Agenda Item 14

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00479/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: LAND SOUTHWEST OF, 31 REAP LANE, PORTLAND DT5 2DW

PROPOSAL: Erection of 4no. dwellings

APPLICANT: Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd

CASE OFFICER: Jo Riley

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Baker, Cllr McCartney, Cllr Nowak.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve subject to conditions.

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Portland and is currently part of a flat, unenclosed, and undeveloped grassed area of land between Reap Lane and Ripcroft. The surrounding dwellings are primarily terraced two storeys. Opposite the site on Reap Lane is an area of Local Landscape Importance (LLLI) containing farm outbuildings. The proposed site is not allocated as public open space or play area in the adopted Local Plan. The character of the area is of open plan front gardens with a grass verge and highway, with no on street parking restrictions and parking for existing houses provided in an area accessed off Limekiln Close. To the front of the site is a lamppost and on the highway is a pinch point and speed bump. There is a bus stop on the corner of Ripcroft.

1.2 The nearest neighbouring properties are No. 31 Reap lane which does not have any windows on its end elevation and No. 94 Rip Croft which has a single high level bathroom window. Rear gardens to properties and the car park area are bordered with a staggered height brick wall between 1.8-2m high.

1.3 The site is not a conservation area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is allocated in the latest SHLAA as a potential development site.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 This full application proposes the erection of four terraced dwellings of two storey height containing two bedrooms each. The proposed materials are brick and concrete roof, upvc windows.

2.2 The dwellings would be served by a modest-sized rear gardens and small patio areas, separated by 1.8m high timber fences. An area of open grass would be

Page 167 retained to the north and south of the four dwellings. Parking would be provided by way of new dropped kerb off Reap Lane with one space per dwelling.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: There is no recent planning history for this site.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

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

INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats ENV10 – The landscape and townscape setting ENV11 – The pattern of streets and spaces ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV15 – Efficient and appropriate use of land ENV16 – Amenity SUS2 – Distribution of development HOUS1 – Affordable housing COM5 - The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities COM7 – Creating a safe and efficient transport network COM9 – Parking standards in new development COM10 – The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

National Planning Policy Framework (2018) As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Chapter 2. Achieving sustainable development Chapter 4. Decision-making Chapter 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 11. Making effective use of land Chapter 12. Achieving well-designed places Chapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards.

Page 168 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) site reference WP/TOPW/033.

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

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

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

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

8. CONSULTATIONS:

8.1 Dorset County Highways: “The County Highway Authority has no objection subject to the following condition:

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plans must have been constructed. Thereafter, these area must be permanently maintained kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Before the development is occupied or utilised the first 7 metres of the vehicle access, measured from the rear edge of the highway (excluding the vehicle crossing) must be laid out and constructed to a specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

8.2 Portland Town Council - Objection  Over development of the site  Loss of green space  Poor lines of sight

Page 169  Potential Highways Issues  Safety of pupils

9. REPRESENTATIONS: Objections have been received from 6 third parties, as follows:

 This is the only green space that small children can play ball games on.  The open car park at front of properties is not in keeping with the village character.  Betterments have put boulders on the side of the grass to prevent others from making car parking spaces at the front.  Reap Lane is already busy with parked cars outside their houses on the road  One space each is not enough  Lots of visitors (rock climbers) park along the road making it difficult for residents to park  There is not enough infrastructure for the additional houses  There will be a loss of privacy  My end garden wall (94 Ripcroft) would become the end garden wall of the properties.  The houses will overlook my garden creating loss of privacy  This will set a precedent for more building on green space  The houses will take away views of countryside and sea views  The road is a blind bend on Reap Lane and with car parking this would become more dangerous.

10. PLANNING ISSUES:  Principle of development  Design  Residential amenity  Access and Parking  Loss of open space  CIL  Affordable housing

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of development The site lies within the defined development boundary, where the principle of new residential development is accepted. In addition the site is allocated in the SHLAA document as having potential for a housing site area 0.29ha, with a potential yield of 9 houses with a density of 31 dph.

11.2 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Councils have 4.94 years of supply across the local plan area. This means that para 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies

Page 170 for the supply of housing, including Policy SUS 2, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Where a 'relevant policy' such as SUS 2 is considered to be 'out-of-date', Para 11 of the NPPF is also engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted unless: i) the application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or ii) 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

11.3 The lack of a 5 year supply, even if the supply is only marginally below 5 years, means that less weight has to be given to policies such as Policy SUS 2 in decision-making. The local plan inspector's comments, which raised concerns about the marginal nature of the council's housing land supply, remain just as relevant to decision-making, now the supply has slipped below 5 years. This application site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Portland in the adopted local plan and would be seen in the wider context of the surrounding buildings. Based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply, and subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan, the proposal in principle is considered acceptable.

11.4 Design The proposed dwellings would be positioned in line with the terraces of No. 29 to 31 Reap Lane, orientated east to west with the ridge line running north to south and similar height to other properties in Reap Lane, with a slightly staggered ridge line. The proposed houses are of a simple design with flat frontages, other properties nearby have small porches and some detailing such as half dormers. However there is no distinctive design to dictate that these terraces should be a replica of those existing. The general scale and modern design would not appear out of character with the area. The use of brick and tiled roof in a suitable colour tone to reflect the overall vicinity will mean that the proposed four houses would not appear incongruous.

11.4 Residential amenity Each of the dwellings would be modest two bedrooms and have private enclosed amenity space of a similar scale to surrounding properties. They would not have front gardens those being forfeited for parking spaces, but overall the amount of built form in relation to hard surfaces and retained green space is considered acceptable and is not considered to be overly crammed or overdevelopment.

11.5 Due to the nature of terraced houses there is already an element of mutual overlooking of rear first floor windows to gardens and this would be the case with the proposed dwellings. It is noted that the existing two end terraces have the benefit of no neighbours only grassed area or overlooking to car parks. However the side window of No. 94 is on view at present to the public domain (footpath users) and the

Page 171 four new houses would not cause any adverse overlooking to neighbouring gardens than currently exists. There is a distance of 11m between the rear windows to the side window and this is not considered to be harmful.

11.6 With regard to comments about the boundary treatment to the rear of proposed house Plot No. 4 and No. 94 Ripcroft, the site plan shows a timber fence and some form of hedging. A condition is recommended if approved for the hard and soft landscaping including boundary treatments to be agreed. Any issues of who has responsibility/ownership of the existing boundary is a private party wall issue.

11.7 Access and Parking There are no objections from the County Highways Officer in terms of highway safety. With regard to the impact of parking of the road frontage, it is noted that there are no parking restrictions at present and therefore anyone can park on the side of the road. The dropped kerb would reduce a small section of on street parking. The alternative to off street parking would be to provide no parking which whilst supported in sustainability terms (there is a nearby bus stop), in practice can cause disputes. The parking area off Limekiln Close appears heavily used with no potential for these to be provided. It would be desirable in visual terms to copy the open nature with front gardens, rather than parking spaces but as these spaces are low level, and no means of enclosure, it is considered that the 4 spaces and dropped kerb would not be so significant to refuse the application on these grounds.

11.8 Loss of open space Policy COM5 of the adopted Local Plan states;

The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities i) Development on, or change of use of open spaces of public value and recreational facilities (including school playing fields) will not be permitted unless: • The development proposed is ancillary to the use of the site and the proposal will either support or improve the recreational and amenity value of the site or does not adversely affect the number, size or quality of playing pitches or their use; or • The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the open spaces and recreational facilities (including school playing fields); or • Alternative and/or suitable replacement outdoor or indoor provision of equal or better recreational quality or value is provided in a location which is suitable to meet any deficiency in provision, and/or better placed and accessible to the surrounding community it serves, and there is a clear community benefit; or • It can be demonstrated that the open space, buildings or land are surplus to requirements and there is no need for alternative open space of public value or recreational uses which could reasonably take place at the site. ii) Existing marine based recreational facilities should be retained.

Page 172 11.9 Clearly the above Policy seeks to retain valued areas of open space of public and community value whereas in fact the application site is simply an area of grassed undeveloped land. Given that the DDB is the focus for new development and Policy ENV15 seeks to make the best efficient and appropriate use of land in such areas, together with the housing land supply position, the proposal is considered acceptable such that the loss of the grassed land is acceptable

11.10 Community Infrastructure Levy 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 square metre CIL rate.

The development proposal is CIL liable.

The rate at which CIL is charged is £80 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development if approved. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations - (Reg. 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted. The estimated charge for this site is £26,860.

11.11 Affordable Housing Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the re-instatement of a Written Ministerial Statement from 28 November 2014. National planning policy and national guidance establish thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

1.12 In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions will not normally be sought on sites of 10 units or fewer (or with a maximum gross combined floor space of 10,000 square metres of less), outside designated rural areas. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY: Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered acceptable and the recommendation is to grant permission subject to the following conditions.

13. RECOMMENDATION:

13.1 Grant permission subject to the following conditions:

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

Page 173

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

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

Location and Block Plan - Drawing Number BP2018-01 Proposed Site Plan - Drawing Number BP2018-02 Proposed Elevations - Drawing Number BP2018-03 Proposed Floor and Roof Plans - Drawing Number BP2018-04 Topographical Survey - Drawing Number Bett/reap Lane Portland 190318

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

3. Prior to development above damp proof course level, details and samples of all facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.

4. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised, the turning and parking as 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 no adversely impacted upon.

5. Before the development is occupied or utilised, the first 7m of the vehicle access, measured from the red edge of the highway (excluding the vehicle crossing) must be laid out and constructed to specification submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a suitably surfaced and constructed access to the site is provided that prevents loose materials being dragged and/or deposited onto the adjacent carriageway causing a safety hazard.

6. Prior to development above damp proof course level, full details of both hard and soft landscape works including boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Page 174 Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.

Informatives: NPPF, CIL, Section 184 Highways.

Page 175 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00607/OUT

APPLICATION SITE: LAND BETWEEN, 68-78 REAP LANE, PORTLAND

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3No. dwellings with associative parking

APPLICANT: BETTERMENT PROPERTIES (WEY) LTD

CASE OFFICER: Jo Riley

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Nowak, Cllr McCartney, Cllr Baker.

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve.

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The site is located within the defined development area (DDB) of Portland and is currently a raised area of grassland between No. 68 and 78 Reap Lane. To the east of the proposed site is a track leading to the coast and a path leading to the frontage of properties. To the west is an open area of car park. Opposite the site to the south is a children’s play area and larger area of open space.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 This is an OUTLINE application with all matters of scale/appearance/layout/access and landscaping reserved for future consideration to develop the site for a development of 3 dwellings. Indicative plans show 6 car parking spaces and houses designed following the curve of the road and houses of a two storey terrace nature.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: There is no recent planning history for this site.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

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

INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats ENV10 – The landscape and townscape setting ENV11 – The pattern of streets and spaces ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV15 – Efficient and appropriate use of land ENV16 – Amenity SUS2 – Distribution of development

Page 177 HOUS1 – Affordable housing COM5 - The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities COM7 – Creating a safe and efficient transport network COM9 – Parking standards in new development COM10 – The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

National Planning Policy Framework (2018) As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Chapter 2. Achieving sustainable development Chapter 4. Decision-making Chapter 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 11. Making effective use of land Chapter 12. Achieving well-designed places Chapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: None.

6. HUMAN RIGHTS: (Standard Paragraph) Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

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

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

Page 178

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

8. CONSULTATIONS:

8.1 County Highways: “The County Highway Authority has no objection. Further comments would be provided at reserved matters stage.

8.2 Dorset Rights of Way Senior Ranger - The proposed developments are in the vicinity of the right of way (footpath No. 49) as recorded on the county definitive maps and statement of rights of way. However I am unaware of any unrecorded paths that may be affected. I have no objection to the development as shown on the plans. However during the duration of the development the full width of the public footpath must remain open and available to the public with no materials or vehicles stored on the route .

8.3 Portland Town Council - Objection  Over development of the site  Loss of green space  Archaeological importance

8.4 Natural England: No objection based on the plans submitted, Natural England considered that the proposed development would not have significant adverse impact on statutorily protects sites or landscapes.

9. REPRESENTATIONS: Objections have been received from 10 third parties, as follows:

 Loss of open space  The open space is one of the reasons people choose to live here  This will lead to an increase of traffic  There is already traffic from the school and climbers  This will eliminate green space and tranquillity  The area is becoming too overcrowded  Amenities and infrastructure cannot cope with new houses

10. PLANNING ISSUES:  Principle of development  Design  Residential amenity  Access and Parking  Loss of open space  CIL

Page 179  Affordable housing

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of development In terms of the principal of the development the sites lies within the defined development boundary for Portland. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. Given the location of the site inside the DDB with good access to amenities the principle of the application is acceptable. The development will also further assist in the lack of five year housing supply, subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan.

11.2 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Councils have 4.94 years of supply across the local plan area. This means that para 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies for the supply of housing, including Policy SUS 2, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Where a 'relevant policy' such as SUS 2 is considered to be 'out-of-date', Para 11 of the NPPF is also engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted unless: i) the application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or ii) 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

11.3 The lack of a 5 year supply, even if the supply is only marginally below 5 years, means that less weight has to be given to policies such as Policy SUS 2 in decision-making. The local plan inspector's comments, which raised concerns about the marginal nature of the council's housing land supply, remain just as relevant to decision-making, now the supply has slipped below 5 years. This application site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Portland in the adopted local plan and would be seen in the wider context of the surrounding buildings. Based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply, and subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan, the proposal in principle is considered acceptable.

11.4 Design This is an outline application with all matters reserved. The indicative plans do show that there is potential space for car parking, small gardens and 3 houses upon the site, although the exact configuration could be improved prior to reserved matters. The indicative design of two storey terrace houses would fit in with the character of neighbouring properties.

Page 180 11.5 Residential amenity As this is an outline application only with all matters reserved, the exact siting, room layouts, materials and parking etc are matters to be considered at reserved matters stage. The site does have the potential for 3 houses to be accommodated and designed in such a way that any new windows would only look into the public domain and front windows of existing houses. The area of land is separated from existing houses by the car park and footpaths and would not appear overly crammed in the street scene.

11.6 Access and Parking There are no objections from the County Highways Officer. As this is an outline application only with all matters reserved the exact layout and numbers of parking spaces are not under consideration. There are no parking restrictions such as yellow lines in the vicinity and plenty of on street parking. There is also a bus stop further along Reap Lane that could serve these dwellings.

11.7 Loss of open space Policy COM5 of the adopted Local Plan states;

The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities i) Development on, or change of use of open spaces of public value and recreational facilities (including school playing fields) will not be permitted unless: • The development proposed is ancillary to the use of the site and the proposal will either support or improve the recreational and amenity value of the site or does not adversely affect the number, size or quality of playing pitches or their use; or • The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the open spaces and recreational facilities (including school playing fields); or • Alternative and/or suitable replacement outdoor or indoor provision of equal or better recreational quality or value is provided in a location which is suitable to meet any deficiency in provision, and/or better placed and accessible to the surrounding community it serves, and there is a clear community benefit; or • It can be demonstrated that the open space, buildings or land are surplus to requirements and there is no need for alternative open space of public value or recreational uses which could reasonably take place at the site. ii) Existing marine based recreational facilities should be retained.

11.9 Clearly the above Policy seeks to retain valued areas of open space of public and community value whereas in fact the application site is simply an area of grassed undeveloped land. Given that the DDB is the focus for new development and Policy ENV15 seeks to make the best efficient and appropriate use of land in such area, together with the housing land supply position, the proposal is considered acceptable such that the loss of the grassed land is acceptable.

11.10 Community Infrastructure Levy

Page 181 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 square metre CIL rate.

The development proposal is CIL liable.

The rate at which CIL is charged is £80 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development if approved. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations - (Reg. 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted. The final CIL amount would be calculated at reserved matters stage.

11.11 Affordable Housing Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the re-instatement of a Written Ministerial Statement from 28 November 2014. National planning policy and national guidance establish thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

11.12 In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions will not normally be sought on sites of 10 units or fewer (or with a maximum gross combined floor space of 10,000 square metres of less), outside designated rural areas. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

12. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered acceptable and the recommendation is to grant outline permission subject to the following conditions

13 RECOMMENDATION

13.1 Grant outline permission subject to the following conditions;

1. Before any development is commenced details of 'reserved matters' (that is any matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application and which concern the layout, scale, appearance, access or landscaping), shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their subsequent approval.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010.

2. Application for approval of any 'reserved matter' must be made not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Page 182 Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

3. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

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

 Location and Block Plan - Drawing Number REAP678 BP-01

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

Informatives

NPPF, CIL

Page 183 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00424/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: LAND WEST OF, BRANSCOMBE CLOSE, PORTLAND

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2no. dwellings

APPLICANT: Mr Betterment Properties (Wey) Ltd

CASE OFFICER: Jo Riley

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Nowak, Cllr McCartney, Cllr Baker,

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE:

1.1 The site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Portland. It is an area of slightly raised ground on the junction with Branscombe Close and Rip Croft. The character of the area is that of terraced and semi detached houses with flat roof porches, terraces with half dormers, and bungalows. To the north of the grassed area is a private drive to No. 15 and 16 Rip Croft. No. 58 which is on the west of the site has a desire line leading to a gate into their garden.

1.3 The site is not within a conservation area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The grassed area referred to as open space is not an allocated play area or an allocated open space area within the adopted Local Plan.

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:

2.1 This full application proposes the erection of two terraced dwellings of two storey height with pitched roof porches. Each dwelling would be three bedroomed each. The proposed materials are brick and concrete roof, upvc windows.

2.2 The dwellings would be served by modest-sized rear gardens and small patio areas, separated by 1.8m high timber fences. An area of open grass would be retained to the east and west. Two parking spaces are proposed off Rip Croft to the south of the properties, with an open plan character retained at the front.

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: There is no recent planning history for this site.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:

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

Page 185 INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats ENV10 – The landscape and townscape setting ENV11 – The pattern of streets and spaces ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV15 – Efficient and appropriate use of land ENV16 – Amenity SUS2 – Distribution of development HOUS1 – Affordable housing COM5. The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities COM7 – Creating a safe and efficient transport network COM9 – Parking standards in new development COM10 – The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure

National Planning Policy Framework (2018) As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Chapter 2. Achieving sustainable development Chapter 4. Decision-making Chapter 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Chapter 11. Making effective use of land Chapter 12. Achieving well-designed places Chapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5 Other Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Space Standards.

OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: None

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

Page 186 This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

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

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

8. CONSULTATIONS:

8.1 County Highways: “The County Highway Authority has no objection subject to the following conditions:

Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning and parking shown on the submitted plans must have been constructed. Thereafter, these area must be permanently maintained kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Before the development hereby approve is occupied or utilised, provision must be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.

8.2 Portland Town Council - Objection  Over development of the site  Loss of amenity space  Not in keeping with emerging neighbourhood plan Policy CR4

9. REPRESENTATIONS: Objections have been received from 3 third parties, as follows:

 Most of the residents in Branscombe Close object  Parking is difficult at present and this would make it worse.  A private right of way will be affected  Access is too narrow for construction vehicles

Page 187  Loss of light and privacy for residents living opposite the site  Two storey houses in front of bungalows is bad design  It should be terraced houses that are built there  The houses would encroach on the path at the side of No. 58 Rip Croft  They would block out light to the front of our properties  The houses would block sight lines for traffic

10. PLANNING ISSUES:  Principle of development  Design  Residential amenity  Access and Parking  Loss of open space  CIL  Affordable housing

10. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:

11.1 Principle of development In terms of the principal of the development the sites lies within the defined development boundary for Portland. Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to “strictly control” development outside DDBs, “having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. Given the location of the site inside the DDB with good access to amenities the principle of the application is acceptable. The development will also further assist in the lack of five year housing supply, subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan.

11.2 The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The Councils have 4.94 years of supply across the local plan area. This means that para 11, footnote 7 of the NPPF is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies for the supply of housing, including Policy SUS 2, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Where a 'relevant policy' such as SUS 2 is considered to be 'out-of-date', Para 11 of the NPPF is also engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted unless: i) the application of policies in the framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, or ii) 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

11.3 The lack of a 5 year supply, even if the supply is only marginally below 5 years, means that less weight has to be given to policies such as Policy SUS 2 in decision-making. The local plan inspector's comments, which raised concerns about

Page 188 the marginal nature of the council's housing land supply, remain just as relevant to decision-making, now the supply has slipped below 5 years. This application site is located within the defined development boundary (DDB) of Portland in the adopted local plan and would be seen in the wider context of the surrounding buildings. Based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply, and subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan, the proposal in principle is considered acceptable.

11.3 Design The proposed two houses are not considered to be overdevelopment of the plot. The gardens would be shorter than those of the adjacent terraces but there is a mix of garden sizes in the area. The use of timber fencing to enclose the rear gardens would be no more out of character than brick walls to enclose gardens which is used in the area. The two houses would have frontages following the building line of No 58 Rip Croft and the use of open plan frontages with off street parking is not out of character. The site would have to be levelled - there is approximately 1m difference from front to rear of the site. No site sections have been provided exactly how this would be achieved. The proposed ridge height is 74.14 aod with the neighbouring ridge being 73.93 aod. Existing properties in Rip Croft have a staggered ridge line going up from west to east, so a height difference would not be out of character. A condition is recommended if approved for a “setting out” condition including finished levels to be agreed. The proposed design of semi detached properties with windows close to the eaves, and small porches whilst not copying the neighbouring properties is considered acceptable given there is a mix of house types in the vicinity. A condition is also recommended if approved to agree the palette of materials as there is a general conformity of brown/red brick and tiles in the area.

11.4 Residential amenity Each of the dwellings would be modest two bedrooms and have private enclosed amenity space. They would have open plan frontages as is the character of the area. The gardens are not large but are considered adequate for small houses.

11.5 Rear first floor windows from the proposed houses would look towards the front of properties in the surrounding area which are in the pubic domain and not directly look into rear gardens. There may be some acute views into rear gardens, but the nature of terraced and semi detached houses in a built up area is that some overlooking of gardens is accepted. Comments have been received that the proposed houses would block light to properties that are opposite. No. 58 Rip Croft does not have any windows on the end elevation and bungalows on the opposite side of the Branscombe Close are sufficient distance away to prevent loss of light. The views out of front windows would alter, but there would be no loss of outlook.

11.6 The plans do not show development encroaching onto the informal path at the side of No. 58 front garden to the gate at the rear. If there is a private right of way, this is a matter between the developer and the land owner.

Page 189

11.7 Access and Parking There are no objections from the County Highways Officer in terms of highway safety. With regard to the comments about lack of parking, each properly in the area has off street parking as would the proposed dwellings. In addition there is no lack of off street parking or parking restrictions such as yellow lines or residents permits. Two car parking spaces per dwelling is considered acceptable.

11.8 Loss of open space Policy COM5 of the adopted Local Plan states;

The Retention Of Open Space And Recreational Facilities i) Development on, or change of use of open spaces of public value and recreational facilities (including school playing fields) will not be permitted unless: • The development proposed is ancillary to the use of the site and the proposal will either support or improve the recreational and amenity value of the site or does not adversely affect the number, size or quality of playing pitches or their use; or • The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor sports facility, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss of the open spaces and recreational facilities (including school playing fields); or • Alternative and/or suitable replacement outdoor or indoor provision of equal or better recreational quality or value is provided in a location which is suitable to meet any deficiency in provision, and/or better placed and accessible to the surrounding community it serves, and there is a clear community benefit; or • It can be demonstrated that the open space, buildings or land are surplus to requirements and there is no need for alternative open space of public value or recreational uses which could reasonably take place at the site. ii) Existing marine based recreational facilities should be retained.

11.9 Clearly the above Policy seeks to retain valued areas of open space of public and community value whereas in fact the application site is simply an area of grassed undeveloped land. Given that the DDB is the focus for new development and Policy ENV15 seeks to make the best efficient and appropriate use of land in such area, together with the housing land supply position, the proposal is considered acceptable such that the loss of the grassed land is acceptable.

11.10 Community Infrastructure Levy 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 square metre CIL rate.

The development proposal is CIL liable.

The rate at which CIL is charged is £80 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of

Page 190 the development if approved. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations - (Reg. 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted. The estimated charge for this site is £18,000.

11.11 Affordable Housing Policy HOUS1 requires all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing. However, in May 2016 National Planning Practice Guidance was updated to reflect the re-instatement of a Written Ministerial Statement from 28 November 2014. National planning policy and national guidance establish thresholds below which affordable housing contributions should not be sought.

11.12 In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions will not normally be sought on sites of 10 units or fewer (or with a maximum gross combined floor space of 10,000 square metres of less), outside designated rural areas. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY: Having regard to the above, the proposal is considered acceptable and the recommendation is to grant permission subject to the following conditions.

13. RECOMMENDATION:

13.1 Grant permission subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

Location and Block Plan - Drawing Number LA/58RIP/PA/BP/01 Proposed Site Plan - Drawing Number LA/58RIP/PA/BP/02 Proposed Floor plans and Elevations - Drawing Number LA/58RIP/PA/BP/03 Topographical Survey - Drawing Number 190318

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

3. Prior to development above damp proof course level details and samples of all external facing materials for the wall(s) and roof(s) shall be submitted to, and

Page 191 approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.

4. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised, the turning and parking as 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 no adversely impacted upon.

5. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised, provision must be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.

Reason: To ensure that the site is properly drained and that surface water does not flow onto the highway

6. Prior to development above damp proof course level, full details of both hard and soft landscape works including boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.

7. Before any foundations are excavated or piling is commenced, the building shall be pegged out in the position shown on the approved plan and this siting shall be checked and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed floor levels shall be similarly indicated and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before any on-site concrete is laid.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship of the proposed building with adjoining properties and/or land, to the adjoining highway and to safeguard the character and amenity of the area.

Informatives: NPPF, CIL, Section 184 Highways.

Page 192 Agenda Item 17

APPLICATION NUMBER: WP/18/00586/FUL

APPLICATION SITE: WEYMOUTH QUAYSIDE, WEYMOUTH

PROPOSAL: Strengthening of 76 metres of sheet steel pile wall by a line of new sheet steel piles driven into the harbour bed immediately in front of the old wall. Replacement of the four flights of existing ferry steps by two new flights of steps supported on the new piles. Demolition of the brick and concrete kiosk building at the top of the ferry steps.

APPLICANT: Dorset Councils Partnership

CASE OFFICER: Clare McCarthy

WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr Tia Roos; Cllr Jason Osborne; Cllr Francis Drake

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve – subject to conditions.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 The site is an area of land reclaimed during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by constructing harbour walls and infilling behind them to improve landing areas; provide railway access; and, to provide land for development of the ports infrastructure. It comprises an elevated landing stage, mainly surfaced in tarmac located close to Devonshire Buildings, a Grade II Listed Georgian terrace of guest houses; and, the Grade II* Listed Roundhouse Hotel. The quay, built for Channel Island ferries and cargo, is now used throughout the year, typically with pontoons occupied by visiting boats during the summer and larger vessels tied up directly to the quay wall during winter. The ferry service to the Channel Islands and Cherbourg no longer operates from the Harbour.

1.2 The site location lies within the Defined development Boundary (DDB) for Weymouth; and, mainly within the Weymouth Town Centre Conservation Area.

2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: (From the Design and Access Statement) 2.1 The proposed works involve driving a line of new sheet steel piles into the harbour bed as close as practically possible to the face of the existing piles. The gap between the new and existing piles will be filled with reinforced concrete to tie the combined structure back to the sound sections of the existing tie bars. Generally, the face of the new wall will be approximately 900mm seaward of the existing line of sheet piling. This is increased from the 500mm originally proposed in order to accommodate new concrete steps to replace the former steel steps which are used for boat crew and passenger access. Exposed parts of the piles will be painted black prior to installation with a specialist coating to delay corrosion.

Page 193 2.2 The existing reinforced concrete pile capping beam will be removed and a similar capping beam will be constructed along the top of the new piles to form the quay edge. Safety equipment, mooring bollards, hand rails and pontoon guide rails will be re-positioned or replaced as appropriate.

2.3 The kiosk building will be demolished to accommodate the piling work and replaced by a much smaller electrical switchgear kiosk, built into the elevated landing stage. Buried service pipes and cables will be diverted or replaced as necessary and ducting will be installed for possible future requirements. Surface water and highway drainage will be repaired or replaced as necessary.

2.4 The existing four flights of steel ferry steps will be removed. New reinforced concrete steps 1.8 metres wide, supported on cylindrical piles, will be set into the harbour wall. The new layout will be similar to the stone steps built in 1960, with two flights falling away from a central landing at quayside level.

2.4 On completion, the quayside will be surfaced with tarmac, as at present. Except for the ferry steps, kiosk and off-set quay edge, the layout and materials of the strengthened quay wall and quayside will be as existing.

2.5 The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement; Heritage Statement; Flood Risk Assessment; and, preliminary comments received at the pre-application stage from Natural England.

Community Consultation: (From the Design and Access Statement) 2.6 “The proposals were publicised and discussed at a briefing for Borough Councillors and drop in sessions for local residents and businesses for the proposed Peninsula Development held on 14 and 15 March 2018.

2.7 An initial meeting for businesses close to the site (Devonshire and Pulteney Buildings) and Weymouth Pavilion was held on 19 June 2018 to provide information and discuss the programme and detailed arrangements for the proposed work.

2.8 The Weymouth Harbour Master has been involved in the development of the proposals and is consulting directly with the Harbour Management Board and harbour users.”

3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: (From the Design and Access Statement) 3.1 There is no planning history of direct relevance. The following description of events affecting the site is taken from the submitted Design and Access Statement. “Wall D is a 76 metre length of sheet steel pile quay wall supported by steel tie rods leading to reinforced concrete anchor beams buried in the quayside, shown on Plans 3, 4 and 5. It was constructed in 1960 under an agreement dated 8 March 1960 between the Borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis and the British Transport Commission, which financed the work to provide for its “service of ferries” to the Channel Islands. The council agreed to “….construct the Works and to efficiently maintain and when necessary renew the Works”.

Page 194

3.2 The steel piles and the outer ends of the tie rods are now corroded. In terms of current design codes they were overloaded when new and in their present condition they may be at risk of failure. Numerous corrosion holes in the piles allow localised loss of limestone fill material into the harbour.

3.3 The wall supports four flights of steel steps used by the rowing boat ferries crossing the harbour, steel guide rails for pontoons, mooring bollards, ladders and safety equipment. The quayside is open to the public. To limit risks of structural failure, loading restrictions have been introduced, the ferry steps have been taken out of use and the wall is inspected and monitored.

3.4 The brick and concrete kiosk building on the quayside was constructed soon after Wall D and houses electrical switchgear, a small ice cream booth and old public toilets now used by the rowing ferry operators. It is in poor condition, not suitable for its present uses and the viewing platform on the roof has been closed because it is unsafe.”

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF has been updated with a revised version published on 23 July, 2018. As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:

Paragraph 11 advises of the ‘Presumption in favour of sustainable development’.

Section 12 ‘Achieving well designed places’ indicates that all development to be of a high quality in design, and the relationship and visual impact of it to be compatible with the surroundings. In particular, and amongst other things, Paragraphs 124 – 132 advise that:

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.

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.

Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Further advice contained in the following sections of the NPPF is of relevance: Section 6 – Building a strong, competitive economy; Section 7 – Ensuring the vitality of town centres; Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment; Section 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment;

Page 195 Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The development plan for the West Dorset planning area comprises the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015. In the Local Plan the following policies are relevant to this proposal:

 INT1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development  ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and Sites of geological Interest  ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats  ENV4 – Heritage Assets  ENV5 – Flood Risk  ENV10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting  ENV 16 – Amenity  ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities  COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities  WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy  WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area  WEY5 – The Esplanade (South)  WEY6 – Ferry Peninsula

5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (adopted 2009). Policy (a) Work in harmony with the site and its surroundings Policy (h) Maintain and enhance local character Policy (i) Create high quality architecture Weymouth Town Centre Masterplan SPD – including Weymouth Town Centre Flood Relief Scheme. Weymouth Conservation Area Appraisal

6. HUMAN RIGHTS: 6.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

Page 196 This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.

7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.

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

Re-surfacing with tarmac will provide a firm, level surface to enable safe access for all. The replacement concrete ferry steps represent an improved surface that will help prevent slipping compared to the previous steel steps which are to be removed.

8. CONSULTATIONS: 8.1 Dorset CC - Highways - NO OBJECTION – subject to the necessary diversions and/or temporary traffic orders will be put in place and any affected highway including signage reinstated. 8.2 Environment Agency – No objection. 8.3 Natural England – No objection subject to condition requiring noise from piling to be kept to a minimum and for works to be completed by the end of March to avoid the breeding season in respect of birds breeding at Radipole Lake SSSI. In addition, NE has recommended the works include mitigation to avoid any negative impacts to identified seagrass beds, including measures to ensure there is no increase in turbidity, no smothering and to prevent construction materials entering the waterbody. Measures could include the deployment of silt or grout curtains. Opportunities for environmental enhancements may be incorporated into the seawall structure including increasing the surface and structural complexity of the seawall (ensuring a rough surface or creation of nooks and crannies in the structure).

9. REPRESENTATIONS: 9.1 Two letters of representation from third parties have been received. These are from the motor boatmen and rowing ferry boatmen operating ferry services across the harbour; and, from a local guesthouse owner. Comments are precised as follows:

The boatmen express concerns that:

Page 197 They ply their trade from the Ferry Steps with a 10 year Agreement and are very concerned about the proposed dates for this work to be carried out, especially if there is an overrun in the timing, especially as they are already scheduled to lose two months earnings.

Suggest that a small store for the boatmen be included next to the small kiosk for switching gear that is to be erected following the demolition of the existing brick and concrete kiosk building.

Concern over previous nearby pile driving works not being up to standard with evidence of extensive cracking developing on numerous buildings or inspect or monitor possible damage to the listed buildings, involving:

- not taking into account ageing buildings, - historic merit, - poor foundations, - indifferent levels of maintenance, - inadequate structural repairs dating back many decades.

We will not countenance a repeat of such an experience, especially not when the piling will be at much closer range and more "forceful".

Other concern is that compensation for damage, repairs, loss of trade/earnings during the period of works etc. may be minimised through WPBC/Unitary Council dilution and dilation and that damage manifesting some significant time later, through "settling" effects, may not be considered under "blinkered" compensation arrangements. These issues need early address and confirmation.

The Guest House owners concerns are the same as the Boatmen’s, but are restricted to comments on the standard and quality of previous works.

10. PLANNING ISSUES:

 Principle of development  Purpose of the works to the harbour wall  Impact on the character of The Harbour, and Conservation Area  Impacts on users and neighbours amenities;  Commercial Impacts  Any other material planning considerations

11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT: 11.1 Principle of development 11.1.1 The works proposed are repairs to and the upgrading of the existing harbour wall, and in principle, are acceptable. The works constitute ‘Permitted Development’, as outline din Schedule 2, Part 8, Class B. (b) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Page 198 Development) (England) Order, 2015 (as amended). However, the demolition of the existing kiosk building and its replacement with a new, smaller, switchgear kiosk, does not constitute ‘Permitted Development’, and as the works of repair to the Harbour Wall are co-dependent on the removal of the kiosk and its replacement, planning permission for the overall scheme of works is considered to be a requirement. Case law indicates that where a scheme may be Permitted Development, or where the applicant chooses not to implement Permitted Development rights, the applicant is at liberty to make a planning application for his/her proposed development. The Council has chosen to follow this course of action here in in respect of the works to the harbour wall in the public interest and the interests of transparency. The development proposed is sustainable, and in this respect the principle of development is accepted. The proposed development accords with the provisions of Policy INT1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development - contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015.

11.2 Purpose of the works to the harbour wall 11.2.1 The proposed works are for the renovation, repair and replacement of a 76m length of the present harbour wall on The Peninsula close to The Pavilion Theatre; and, involve works to the present landing stage where the ferry boatmen – both motor boats and rowing boats – operate ferry services across the harbour between the site and Hope Street on the Nothe peninsula opposite. The works are required in their own right for these purposes, however, they will as a result facilitate and enhance any development of The Peninsula that may be permitted by improving public access between the two sides of the harbour via the present ferry service, and by upgrading the landing facilities for visiting boats, their crew and passengers. The proposed works are acceptable in this regard and meet the requirements of Policies ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities; COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities; WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy; WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area; WEY5 – The Esplanade (South); WEY6 – Ferry Peninsula in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015.

11.3 Impact on the character of The Harbour, and Conservation Area 11.3.1 The works will result in the outward projection of this length of the harbour wall by approximately 900mm. It will be fronted by vertical pile sheeting where it faces out towards the harbour. The existing reinforced concrete pile capping beam will be removed and a similar capping beam will be constructed along the top of the new piles to form the quay edge, and on completion, the quayside will be surfaced with tarmac, as at present. Except for the ferry steps, kiosk and off-set quay edge (900mm), the layout and materials of the strengthened quay wall and quayside will be as existing.

11.3.2 The character and setting of the Conservation Area; and, Setting of the Grade II Listed Devonshire Buildings, and Grade II* Listed Roundhouse Hotel, will be preserved. Post development, there will be little to discern that the harbour wall has been repaired and strengthened other than an additional 900mm has been added to the quayside width, and that the four flights of existing metal ferry steps will have been replaced by two new flights of concrete steps supported on the new piles. The most noticeable aspect will be that the brick and concrete kiosk building at the top of the ferry steps will no longer be there and will have been replaced with a much smaller electrical switchgear kiosk. This meets the requirements of

Page 199 Policy ENV4 - Heritage Assets - in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice contained in Section 16 – ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’ in the NPPF.

11.4 Impacts on users and neighbours amenities 11.4.1 There are no neighbour amenity issues regarding this proposal other than the potential for noise disturbance, or dust and fumes that may arise from operations as the development is carried out. This is implicit in any form of built development or construction works, with much depending on adherence to good practise in the way any such operations on site are carried out to minimise such impacts. A standard condition relating to working hours between 08:00 – 18:00 Monday – Friday; 08:00 – 15:00 Saturdays and no work on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays would be reasonable and should protect neighbours residential amenities (including those in nearby visitors’ accommodation). Officers are mindful that there may be occasions where for site safety reasons works will be obliged to run past the daily finish time. The Engineering Team have advised that this would be for site and public safety reasons only, and such occasions would be rare. It would not be used as an excuse to make up time. Therefore, the words – “unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority”, should be added to the condition.

11.4.2 In respect of the comments raised by the Ferry boatmen, the comments regarding earnings and arrangements with the Harbour Master are separate from the consideration of this application. The suggestion that a small store for the boatmen be included next to the small kiosk for switching gear is something that can be considered separately with the Council as landowner. It is not a matter for consideration as part of this application. The comments in respect of the quality of past harbour works, and their subsequent management are noted. Again, this is not something that can be considered as part of this application. The Council is, however, seeking to implement a good quality form of development in upgrading the harbour wall; in providing access steps for boats which would enable the continuation of ferry boat services; and, for the ongoing maintenance of these facilities in a safe and efficient manner.

11.4.3. This meets the requirements of Policy ENV16 - Amenity - in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice contained in the NPPF.

11.5 Commercial Impacts 11.5.1 Officers consider that the proposed works to repair and strengthen the harbour wall and improve access to existing ferry boat services, and for visitors accessing the quayside from the harbour, will enhance visitors experience of the Seafront and be of benefit economic benefit to the Town Centre and Hope Street on the Nothe side of the Harbour in that it will aid access to existing tourist attractions and facilities; enhance organised events; and, lead to sustained patronage of shops, restaurants, and public houses and other public amenities and facilities commensurate with Weymouth as commercial centre and tourist destination. This accords with the provisions of Policies ECON5 – Tourism Attractions and Facilities; COM4 – New or Improved Local Recreational Facilities; WEY1 – Weymouth Town Centre Strategy; WEY2 – Town Centre Core and Commercial Road Area; WEY5 – The Esplanade (South); and, WEY6 – Ferry

Page 200 Peninsula – contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice in the NPPF.

11.6 Any other material planning considerations Natural England has highlighted two potential impacts in respect of the impact of the development on the breeding bird population at Radipole Lake SSSI; and, the structure of the harbour wall in respect of habitat creation. The first aspect can be controlled by condition in that works of development should not be carried out during the bird nesting season of March – August. This would avoid any works such as noise and vibration from pile-driving impacting on conditions for nesting birds that could cause them disturbance of stress, and can be conditioned.

11.6.2 The second aspect is the impact of the rebuilt harbour wall on marine life in that the wall provides an opportunity for habitat creation. The suggestion that nooks and crannies be built into the wall for marine life to colonise has been discounted by the Council’s Engineering Section as the piled sheets are designed with a smooth finish and are to be painted black. This is to discourage any growth attachment, and to aid longevity and ease of maintenance in what is a working harbour. This would also, to an extent, address the concerns relating to previous quality control, construction, and management regime referred to by the water boatmen.

11.6.3 Opportunities for environmental enhancements may be incorporated into the seawall structure at a later date, and an informative based on the comments to this effect received from Natural England should be added to any planning permission that may be granted. This would aid the bio-diversity within the harbour. This would meet the requirements of Policy ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats - contained in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted October, 2015; and, the advice contained in Section 15 – ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’ in the NPPF.

12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:

12.1 The application is acceptable. The proposed scheme will provide a safe harbour wall environment with improved access for ferry boat operators and seaborne visitors to the Peninsula side of the harbour. This will lead to an improved visitor experience of The Peninsula; The Esplanade; and, Weymouth Seafront, and should benefit local residents and the local economy. It will not harm the character of the Conservation Area; or, adversely impact on the character and setting of nearby Listed Buildings; nor, have an unacceptably adverse impact on the marine wildlife environment. Planning permission for it should be granted.

13. RECOMMENDATION: Approve – subject to conditions.

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

Location Plan - Drawing Number SCH 3208/CON 214/003; Wall D Repair - Existing Plan and Section- Drawing Number 1620004383-SK-0010;

Page 201 Plan of Proposed Works & Extended Elevation - Drawing No. 4720; Wall D Repair Proposed Works General Arrangement Option A - Drawing Number 1620004383- SK-0011 Harbour Wall D Reconstruction Site Access and Traffic Management- Drawing No. SCH 3208/CON 214/004

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

2. 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).

3. No works of development, including any demolition works, shall be carried out on site other than between the hours of:

08:00 – 18:00 Monday – Friday; 08:00 – 15:00 on Saturdays; and, no work on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays,

unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To protect neighbours residential amenities (including those in nearby visitors’ accommodation); and, in the interests of site and public safety.

4. Prior to the rebuilt harbour wall and quayside first coming into public use, details of any lighting to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and shall be operated in accordance with the manufacturers instructions. No lighting shall be shone directly on the surface of the water within the harbour.

REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and pubic safety, and to protect the marine environment.

5. No works of development, including any demolition, shall be carried out during the bird nesting season of March – August.

REASON: To minimise the impact of the development on the breeding bird population at Radipole Lake SSSI.

Informatives:

1. National Planning Policy Framework Statement

Page 202 In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive approach to development proposals and is focused on providing sustainable development. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:

 offering a pre-application advice service, and  as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.

In this case:  The applicant/agent was updated of any issues and provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer.  The applicant was provided with pre-application advice.

2. Whilst not a requirement of this permission given current operational requirements, the applicant is advised that opportunities for environmental enhancements that may be incorporated into the seawall structure including increasing the surface and structural complexity of the seawall (ensuring a rough surface or creation of nooks and crannies in the structure), should be explored and discussed with Natural England at the earliest opportunity.

Page 203 This page is intentionally left blank