APPLICATION NO: WP/14/00988/OBL
01/04/2015
Modification of an existing Planning Obligation to seek discharge of the existing legal
agreement dated 29 December 2000 approved under planning permission
00/00439/COU to allow the residential units to be permanently occupied
APARTMENTS 1, 7, 9, 10A,11, 11A & 12 MARITIME HOUSE, WEST WAY,
SOUTHWELL BUSINESS PARK, PORTLAND, DT5 2JS
Mr R Haywood
Case Officer: Chris Moscrop
FOR DECISION
1 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control)
to instruct the Head of Environment & Planning Law to agree the modification of the
existing Section 106 Agreement.
2 PROPOSAL
2.1 The application requests a modification to an existing legal agreement which affects
a number of flats at the southern end of the 2nd floor of Maritime House. The
agreement restricts permanent residential occupation of these apartments.
2.2 The existing agreement requires that the studio flats shall only be occupied by:
1) (a) A person directly involved in the management of a business operating within
the Business Park and visiting for that purpose;
(b) a person visiting a business for purposes connected with that business;
(c) a student registered with an educational establishment and working at a
business within the Park for the duration of the work placement (max 10 months);
(d) a person undergoing security or dog training by a business within the Park for
the duration of the training (max 10 months).
2) No person to occupy any flats on more than 6 consecutive nights with the
exception of (c) and (d) above.
2.3 The applicants suggest that the covenants no longer serve any useful purpose
because1) They have been breached for a period in excess of 10 years.
2) The nature of the business Park has changed in the 14 years since the obligation
with the advent of the hotel and academy on site.
3) It is reasonable that the flats be used as “ordinary” residential flats.
2.4 I have noted the apparent subdivision of flats referred to in this larger application
and consequently I have asked the applicants agent to clarify the position. I will
therefore report further on this at your meeting.
3 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
Application No.
97/00262/CLOPUD
Proposal
Use as Class B1-Main
Building, Southwell Business
Park, Portland
Decision
Granted June 1997
00/00439/COU
Conversion of surplus offices
on second and third floors to
16 studio flats. Southwell
Business Park, Portland
Granted June 2001
WP/15/00092/COU
Convert 2 No. flats into 4 No.
studio apartments
(retrospective)
Pending
Maritime House
3.1 The Business Park was originally a government research facility and following its
closure the Southwell Business Park was established. Some years later, applications
were made for the establishment of a number of residential units in vacant areas in the
south east corner of the main building to provide accommodation to support on site
businesses. These were agreed subject to legal agreements restricting their use to
purposes incidental to the Business Park function. Other applications to similarly
remove these restrictions have now been submitted. Note the current retrospective
application for the conversion of 2 apartments into 4.
4 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Adopted Weymouth and Portland Local Plan
4.2 This proposal should be considered with regard to the General Development Criteria
in Policy D3 (which refers to the amenity impact of neighbours) and Policy E2 Retention
of Employment Sites and Premises.
4.3 Policy E2 states that -
Proposals that would lead to the loss of existing employment land or premises will be
considered against the following criteria:
(i) whether the site is required in order to maintain an adequate supply of serviced
sites/available premises and a range and choice of such sites/premises that satisfy
modern business requirements;
(ii) the availability of evidence to demonstrate that meaningful efforts have been
made to secure alternative employment uses or the redevelopment of the site for
employment purposes;
(iii) the site's suitability for continued employment use in terms of its location relative
to the main highway network, its accessibility by transport other than the private car,
and its location in relation to residential areas;
(iv) whether the proposal would lead to the reuse of a building of historic interest;
(v) the impact of the existing employment use upon the living conditions of
neighbouring residents.
4.4 The draft West Dorset & Weymouth Local Plan
4.5 Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that:
“From the day of publication [of the NPPF], decision-takers may also give weight
(unless other material considerations indicate otherwise) to relevant policies in
emerging plans according to:
• the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the
preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);
• the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less
significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and
• the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the
policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies
in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.
4.6 Now that the extent of objections to the submitted plan is known and the
examination has passed the hearings stage, we can start to apply varying degrees of
weight to our emerging policies in accordance with the NPPF guidance. As far as this
application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant:
•
•
•
•
INT1. Presumption in favour of sustainable development
ECON 2.Protection of key employment sites
ECON 3.Protection of other employment sites
ENV 16. Amenity
4.7 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
4.8 The national advice in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)
indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In terms of decisiontaking this means:
• approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without
delay; and
• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date,
grant permission unless:
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a
whole; or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should
be restricted.
4.9 Core planning principles – para 17. Within the overarching roles that the planning
system ought to play, a set of core land-use planning principles should underpin both
plan-making and decision-taking. These 12 principles are that planning should amongst
other things always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity
for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.
4.10 Decision taking:
Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way
to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decisiontaking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality
development on the ground.
Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems,
and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable
development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with
applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and
environmental conditions of the area.
5 STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
5.1
Portland Town Council
5.2 The Town Council are considering this proposal at their March meeting which is
before your meeting and therefore I shall report their observations at your meeting.
However they have previously objected to other similar proposals because they say that
the conditions are still needed and should remain
6 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 One representation has been received from the freeholder who has confirmed that
they have no objection.
7 PLANNING ISSUES
7.1 This is not a planning application as such but an application which seeks to revise
an existing agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. In this
case the main issue is the impact of the proposed change from one which ensured that
the provision of residential accommodation is associated with business activity on the
park, to one which allows unrestricted residential occupation.
7.2 At the time this restriction was imposed it was felt important to ensure that any
residential occupation only occurred to support existing business operations to protect
and enhance employment opportunities.
7.3 However since this time parts of the site have remained vacant and other uses have
been agreed, namely the hotel & spa and most recently the education use for the
Academy. In addition Government advice has changed seeking to free up the planning
process/system. From 30th May 2013 premises under Class B1(a) office use can
change to Class C3 residential use without planning permission, subject to obtaining
prior approval covering flooding, highways/ transport issues and contamination.
7.4 In this case I must advise that given the above it would be very difficult to justify a
refusal to agree such a change at appeal. In this part of the Business Park site the uses
are within Class B1 (Business). As such, by definition, residential accommodation can
sit next to such uses as defined in the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).
7.5 A B1 use is a use for all or any of the following purposes—
(a) as an office other than a use within class A2 (financial and professional services),
(b) for research and development of products or processes, or
(c) for any industrial process,
being a use which can be carried out in any residential area without detriment to the
amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust
or grit
7.6 Consequently I must advise that this modification be agreed as others have so been
reported to Committee and approved on a similar basis.
8 SUMMARY OF ISSUES
8.1 In view of the change in circumstances since this restriction was imposed the
proposed modification is acceptable.
9. RECOMMENDATION
9.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning (Development Management and Building Control)
to instruct the Head of Environment & Planning Law to agree the modification of the
existing Section 106 Agreement to agree the modification of the existing Section 106
Agreement as requested (i.e. that the existing agreement be modified to remove the
requirement concerning restriction on residential use).
10
BACKGROUND PAPERS
11.1 97/00262/CLOPUD, 00/00439/COU and WP/14/00988/OBL