Agenda item

Alterations and extensions to the existing building comprising: elevation changes at ground and first floor level; changes to light-wells; construction of new floor space at second and third floor level to create 10 no dwellings; increase the height of the existing roof pitch on the south elevation and insertion of new windows; installation of gates at both ends of the ground floor arcade; and installation of ancillary plant and equipment. Change of use of part of hairdresser floorspace at 39 St Mary Street to a retail unit, with the remaining floorspace to accommodate ancillary residential facilities.

Cllr Bell returned to the Council Chamber at 11:17

 

Cllr Northam and Cllr Shortell move to the members section of the room.

 

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for alterations and extensions to an existing building, to create an additional 10 dwellings. It was explained that it had come to the committee for determination as the officer’s recommendation was contrary to the view of the Town Council and local Ward Member.

 

The building fell within the Weymouth Town Conservation Area and the nearby listed buildings and non-designated heritage assets were highlighted on a map. These included the Grade I listed St Mary’s Church, which was adjacent to the application site.

 

The site had consent approved in 2021, however it was explained that this had since lapsed and since then new flooding data had been released, which was now being considered.

 

Photographs of the building from the front and rear street were provided, as well as a photograph showing the proximity of the adjacent church to the building. Members were shown the proposed and existing elevations of the front and rear of the building, as well as the proposed and existing floor plans.

 

Flood risk was considered high for a 1 in 30-year event and medium for a 1 in 200-year event, based on data from the Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment. The applicant had submitted an evacuation plan for residents in the event of a flood, however this was not considered sufficient to mitigate against the risk due to the distance to a safe location and the route crossing deeper areas of flooding. The applicant had also referenced the Environment Agency’s flood alert system, however as officers couldn’t guarantee that potential residents would be signed up for this system, this wasn’t considered an appropriate mitigation measure against the risk of flooding.

 

In terms of character and heritage, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the scheme had been redesigned since first being submitted and that although there were improvements, the terracotta render and lack of detailing on the frontage of the building meant that officers considered that the visual appearance would detract from the character of the area.

 

There were several amenity concerns noted by the Senior Planning Officer, these included loss of light and outlook onto a neighbouring property and there were two flats where, due to the design of the top floor, both outlook and natural light would be limited. In addition, due to the nearby placement of trees to one side of the building there would be limited sunlight in one of the flats, while no assurances could be made that these trees could be cut back.

 

It was noted that there were benefits to the application, including 10 new dwellings in a sustainable town centre location and the economic benefits associated with the new dwellings, however it was considered that these did not outweigh the substantial harms identified.

 

Mr Howard-Dobson spoke as the agent for the application. He stated that the application would provide 10 dwellings to Weymouth and improve the visual appearance of an old building, as well as making it more sustainable. He did not consider that enough weight was given to the evacuation plan provided and the fact that the flood risk would be from tidal flooding and so would only last 3-6 hours. In addition, he asked members to consider that new flood defences would likely be built to mitigate against flooding in Weymouth in the future, whilst other concerns could be overcome through conditions.

 

In response to questions from members the Senior Planning Officer provided the following responses:

·       The name of the building couldn’t be controlled.

·       Dorset Fire and Rescue were consulted on the safety considerations of the gates and it was stated that they would be controlled by building regulations.

·       Weight couldn’t be given to any potential future flood defences and the application was only being considered in its current form.

·       The flood data came from the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the document was available to the applicant when they made their application.

·       The structure of the building was a consideration that would be covered by building regulations.

·       The lack of community space and outside space was considered to be offset by access to local amenities such as parks and the beach.

·       It wouldn’t be reasonable to amend the appearance of the proposed building through condition. A new application would be required.

·       The evacuation plan would require a route of 600m and would cross into deeper flood waters to reach a safe point.

·       Another application for residential development was refused by the committee in January on the grounds of flood risk and the lack of safe access and egress in the event of a flood. 

 

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representation; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to approve the application was proposed by Cllr O’Leary and seconded by Cllr Northam. Following further debate Cllr Northam withdrew his seconding of the proposal, stating that he did not have enough information to go forward with the proposal. Cllr O’Leary subsequently withdrew his proposal.

 

 

Members continued to discuss the application and although several members agreed that the application would provide a visual improvement on the current building, on balance there were too many issues to overcome, particularly the risk of flooding.

 

Cllr Eysenck proposed that the matter be refused on the grounds set out in the officers recommendation and this was seconded by Cllr Bawden.

 

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.