Venue: Ocean Room, Weymouth Pavilion
Contact: Elaine Tibble 01305 838223 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Cllr I Bruce declared an interest as a member of the Harbour Management Board.
Cllr C James declared an interest as a member of the Harbour Management Board.
Cllr J Orrell declared an interest as a former Director of the Weymouth Area Development Trust.
REQUESTS FOR SITE VISITS
There were no requests for site visits.
Demolition of existing buildings (excluding Pavilion Theatre and Jurassic Skyline viewing tower) and redevelopment for a mix of leisure and commercial uses including hotels, mixed use pub/diner with guest accommodation, restaurants and cafes, indoor leisure buildings, public car parking, commercial fishing and mixed-use harbour buildings and harbour operation and storage areas together with associated landscaping, street furniture, structures, open space and access to and within the site. Outline Application with details of Access, all other matters reserved.
The Head of Planning (Development Management & Building Control) set the scene for the application. She advised that the application was for outline planning permission and to agree the access arrangements only at this stage. The plans within the presentation were for illustration purposes only and were indicative of how the site could be developed. Members were to determine the application on planning grounds only as set out in national and adopted planning policy. Land ownership was not a planning matter.
The Senior Planning Officer then presented the report. A further letter of representation had been received which commented on climate change and the sea wall. An update to the planning conditions had been tabled.
Should committee approve the application, this would include the demolition of the buildings which formed part of the development. She re-iterated that the illustrations were just to show possible layouts of the site. Heritage, landscape and coastline matters were detailed within the report. It was suggested that development to the front of the Pavilion building be conditioned to a height restriction of 10m. The illustrative plan showed 280 car parking spaces but the final number would be determined at the detailed planning stage. With regard to flooding and drainage the relevant consultees were now satisfied subject to a flood risk condition, which would also be addressed again at detailed planning stage when position and scale of buildings and their uses would be known.
Oral representation in objection to the application was received from Mr N Ewens, Mr J West, Mr J Liles, Ms K Harris, Mr P Say and Cllr T Roos.
Their main concerns related to flood risk, policy contradictions, lack of residential development, the financial viability of the Pavilion with the loss of parking spaces, lack of economic evidence that the scheme was viable and the lack of imagination within the illustrative scheme.
Oral representation in support of the application was received from the agent, Cushman and Wakefield.
The Head of Planning (Development Management & Building Control) responded to the speakers’ objections:
With regard to flooding concerns, CIL would collect contributions to address this and the relevant statutory consultees were happy with the proposal.
Policies had been balanced.
There was no absolute requirement for housing in the scheme.
The proposal was in line with National and Local Plan policies.
The decision should be made on planning grounds alone, not financial matters.
Viability was not a planning matter, section 11.9 of the report dealt with the economic impacts and arguments about viability and the need for balance.
Until it was agreed what buildings would go on the site it was not possible to assess the viabilityin any depth.
This was not a comprehensive scheme it was purely outline, therefore it was not uncommon to provide on the basics for an outline application.
Landscape and heritage officers had suggested the possibility of restricting the height of buildings on site and this was set out in conditions.
An amendment was proposed by Cllr I Bruce, ... view the full minutes text for item 47.
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.
There were no urgent items.
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)
There was no exempt business.