Planning Committee Hearing Thurs 3rd October re: application to demolish the swim hut

Dear Swimmers and Supporters

We are still fighting!

Earlier in the summer we lodged a Section 26 Notice that asserted our right to a new lease. The response of the directors of Greenhill Community Trust CIC was to lodge an application to demolish the hut.

This Thursday the Dorset Council Planning Committee will meet at South Walks House at 2pm to decide if the hut should be demolished. Some of us will be there to speak in opposition to the application (we will wear swim hats and goggles on our heads to mark us out as swimmers). Do please join us if you can, the more of us are there the harder it will be to ignore our case. If we get this stopped it will put a big spanner in the plans of the directors of GCT CIC.

We submitted this list of valid planning policy based reasons to refuse the application earlier in the summer. See below.

However, please consider these verifiable surrounding facts whilst you read the policy objections below. You might some of the facts a little surprising.

• A former WPBC Property Services employee who, as part of her job used to administer the beach chalets for the council, is a director of the company that now (questionably - see last bullet below) has a lease to operate the building (Greenhill Community Trust CIC - GCT CIC). Also, another director is a former WPBC councillor. This was confirmed by Dorset Council CEO Matt Prosser.
• In 2013 the council deemed the chalets were too expensive to maintain and invited offers from private developers and community groups in 2014.
• The Chalet Users Group (now Greenhill Community Trust CIC...i.e. the applicant) had their proposal rejected in early 2015.
• In 2016 they were invited by the council officers (former colleagues of the GCT CIC director above) to take over but the opportunity was not re-advertised and it was a one horse race (we submitted an FOI to Dorset Council and had this confirmed as factually correct).
• In 2017 the former community facilities briefholder at WPBC went public with his opposition to this group of people being given the building, Former Councillor Blackwood is quoted in the Dorset Echo as saying this, “I have one or two reservations. The first is a recommendation to the chalet users, which is to be careful about what you are letting yourselves in for. One of the ongoing issues is the cost of maintaining these very old chalets and while there will be a tendency to jump at the opportunity to take over the management because they will believe the council has mismanaged it, I think there are a number of big risks involved.”Cllr Blackwood said there’s also a risk that the community won’t get to use the chalets. “There’s a risk, and I hope it’s one the charitable trust will try hard to avoid, that we won’t see much turnover of chalet use. Those lucky enough to have one might be tempted to ringfence their position and make it difficult for other members of the community to get use of them.” See  https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/15141109.update-seafront-chalets-handed-over-to-community-but-it-comes-with-a-warning/
• GCT CIC knocked the swimmers out of competing with them by telling us they supported us.
• GCT CIC asked us not to take minutes at a board meeting of ours that they attended. This is unlawful. We have minutes to prove this.
• GCT CIC drew up a company constitution  (memorandum & articles) that on the face of it gave their directors the ability to absolve each other of any conflicts of interest, keep the accounts private and to pay themselves. However, further investigation on our part, and reference to the Companies Act 2006 has revealed that GCT directors are all conflicted (as they are all chalet license holders) and as such the Companies Act does not allow them to authorise conflicts of interest. This is only possible if the board of a company is quorate with members that are not similarly conflicted. This casts considerable doubt on whether GCT CIC actually have completed the lease they signed and therefore if they actually have the legal right to make this application to demolish this structure.

ADDENDUM to our Objection of 23 July 2019 Containing Local Planning Policy Reasons Why Application WP/19/00529/LBC and WP/19/00529/FUL Should Be Rejected.

Dear Sirs

Our objection of 23 July (published on the planning portal) requires further and detailed reference to the local plan policies that relate to the key themes of my objection, namely economic, social, community, environmental and sustainable development in this borough.

 

1. W&P Local Plan p.11 “Vision” says

“We want the next 20 years to be an exciting time for the Borough, with significant investment and regeneration of key sites and infrastructure, making this a place where people of all ages will be engaged with their local community, feel a real sense of belonging and civic pride. Weymouth and Portland are special places, set within the World Heritage Coast and the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The relationship with the sea is key to our identity, past, present and future, from the beach to the port and harbours, the sailing opportunities, and all the related maritime industries. We want to keep the individual identities of the communities that make up our area, linking to our maritime heritage and the beautiful coastal and rural landscapes, but always looking to the future.”

Demolishing this structure that has been used imaginatively and sustainably to the benefit of the large local sea swimming community for over two and a half years before the sea swimmers have found alternative premises is a violation of the official vision for the area in the Local Plan.

 

2. Strategic Objective 3 on p.12 states,

“Regenerate key areas including Weymouth and Dorchester town centres, to improve the area’s retail, arts, cultural and leisure offer; and increase employment opportunities.'' 

Needlessly closing a “seaside leisure facility” such as this before there is any material need to re-house the swimmers is a violation of this strategic objective in the Local Plan.

3. Strategic Objective 4 on p.12 states,

“Support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities”

This application is clearly not supportive of “sustainable, safe and healthy” sea swimming “facilities” and should be rejected.

4. Strategic Approach to the Economy p.14 states,

“Development should not undermine the functioning of any centre, or adversely affect its vitality or viability”

Clearly the “viability and viability” (see above) of the “swim changing and storage facility”, a “seaside leisure facility” (landlord’s lease which defines the structure as such) will be detrimentally affected by the demolition of this structure as the swimmers’ community non profit company has been economically damaged by the unlawful eviction and will be again if this structure is demolished before they have a new home. The application should therefore be rejected.

5. Strategic Approach to Community Needs and Infrastructure p.14 states, 

“Community facilities that help promote social interaction as well as minimise the need to travel by car should be provided within local communities. Where possible and practicable (for example on larger developments), new local community facilities will be provided as part of the development, creating attractive and vibrant places to live. Existing local facilities will be protected through a flexible approach which recognises the changing needs in society.”

The swim facility housed in this structure has clearly and obviously promoted “social interaction” and as an “existing local facility” should be “protected through a flexible approach which recognises the changing needs in society”.

The RNLI hut was empty for years. WBSS had an idea and took it over to create a socially inclusive service that reflected the recent growth in outdoor swimming all year round. This was a community response to a “changing need” in society. The unlawful eviction and proposed demolition before the swimmers have been re-housed is a violation of this strategic aim in the Local Plan.

6. Presumption of Sustainable Development p. 15 states,

Paragraphs 1.4.1 to 1.4.4 of the W&P Local Plan conclude with this policy.

“INT1. PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT i) There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. Where there are no policies relevant to an application, or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, the following matters will be taken into account: • the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan; • whether specific policies in that National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should be restricted; and • whether the adverse impacts of granting permission could significantly outweigh the benefits.”

This application to demolish does is clearly not “in favour of sustainable development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area”. In fact it will damage the economic and social conditions in the area and the unlawful eviction of WBSS has already caused such damage in clear violation of the Local Plan.

7. Environment and Climate Change, p.20 ENV 1. States,

“ENV1. LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST i) The plan area’s exceptional landscapes and seascapes and geological interest will be protected, taking into account the objectives of the Dorset AONB Management Plan and World Heritage Site Management Plan. Development which would harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Beauty or Heritage Coast, including their characteristic landscape quality and diversity, uninterrupted panoramic views, individual landmarks, and sense of tranquillity and remoteness, will not be permitted. ii) Development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character. Proposals that conserve, enhance and restore locally distinctive landscape features will be encouraged. Where proposals relate to sites where existing development is of visually poor quality, opportunities should be taken to secure visual enhancements. Development that significantly adversely affects the character or visual quality of the local landscape or seascape will not be permitted.”

The structure in question has existed since the early 2000s and has not posed a problem under this policy before. Why now, with the unlawful eviction of the sea swimming tenants, does it pose a problem? The timing should be noted by the officer making this decision. Also, the council gave written permission for the swimmers to improve the structure, most of the work having been completed just prior to their eviction apart from the proposed double doors similar to those of other chalets on the first tier to improve the visual amenity of the structure. There is no reasonable case for demolishing this structure based upon this policy.

8. Protecting and Enhancing Our Heritage Assets p.28 paragraph 2.3.4 states,

“Development that makes a positive contribution to, or better reveals the significance of the heritage asset, will be encouraged. One of the strategic objectives of the local plan is to protect and enhance the outstanding built environment and the local distinctiveness of places within the area. Our strategy and policies for the historic environment will be to protect and enhance our heritage assets, secure positive improvements and play a positive role in the delivery of other plan objectives such as supporting the local economy and regeneration of key areas. Key initiatives include: • The Council’s Weymouth Town Centre Strategy (policy WEY 1) will provide a mechanism for improving the condition of the historic environment and provide an opportunity to secure appropriate sustainable economic viable uses; • Providing public realm improvements in town centres, for example the Dorchester Transport and Environment Plan (DTEP); • Recognising the importance of markets to the vitality of historic town centres, ports, resorts and harbours;”

Our heritage assets should “secure positive improvements and play a positive role in local plan objectives such as supporting the local economy and regeneration of key areas”. Demolishing this structure actually violates this aim by removing a “positive improvement” and damaging the local economy of sea swimming (B&B’s restaurants etc. used by visiting swimmers) and thus tramples on a valid and valuable element of the regeneration of the town and what it can offer locals and visitors.

9. Listed Building p. 32 Paragraph 2.3.18 states,

“The best way to conserve listed buildings is to keep them in use, ideally the use for which they were originally designed.“

The chalet building was designed for people to swim in the sea and change in the building. This structure’s repurposing is arguably a 21st century way of utilising an area of the building that, if it is removed, will actually reduce the public access to the public asset.

10. ENV 4. p.33 . states, 

“iv) Any harm to the significance of a designated or non-designated heritage asset must be justified. Applications will be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal; if it has been demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain the existing use, find new uses, or mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset, and; if the works proposed are the optimum required to secure the sustainable use of the asset.”

Clearly in this instance the “public benefits” of the application have not been properly considered because removal will harm the local community. We do not think that “all reasonable efforts” have been made to “sustain the existing use”, “find new uses” (absolutely nothing will happen in the space where the structure is at the moment generating no income or social value for the landlord or the town) therefore there has been no effort to “mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset” and the works proposed are obviously NOT the “optimum required to secure the sustainable use of the asset”. In other words by removing this structure and the modern use to which it has been put for the last few years would be actively diminishing the “sustainable use” of the “asset”, namely the entire building over which they have been granted a lease. £1000 per year was the suggested rent of the space in question. If it is removed this revenue will be irrecoverable as the landlords intention is to replace it with absolutely nothing that will generate financial or social capital from their custodianship of the asset.

11. ECON 4. Retail and Town Centre Development states,

“iv) Development likely to lead to significant adverse impacts on existing centres will be refused.”

The swim facility housed in this structure has welcomed over 300 paying users over the last two and a half years. Many of these have also paid for accommodation and restaurant meals locally. Unfortunately over the last few months WBSS CIC have had to inform swimmers interested in using the facility that it is no longer in operation and this has undoubtedly had both an economically and reputationally negative impact on the town.

12. ECON.5 p.92 states, 

“ECON5. TOURISM ATTRACTIONS AND FACILITIES i) Proposals for new, or extensions to, tourism attractions and facilities will be encouraged and supported, particularly where they would: • enhance an existing attraction or facility; or • provide wider environmental benefits, such as helping maintain an historic building; or • provide wider community benefits, such as a new recreational facility that will be used by the local community as well as visitors; or • increase the quality and diversity of the tourism offer in the local area and benefit the local economy. ii) Development should, where possible and practicable, be located within or close to established settlements, or make use of existing or replacement buildings. iii) Major tourism attractions should preferably be located within the town and will be expected to provide adequate visitor facilities, such as parking and toilets, rather than relying on community facilities in the area.”

The sea swimming facility in this structure, as evidenced by the applicant’s lease and its practical operation clearly DOES “enhance an existing attraction or facility”, “helps to maintain a historic building” by providing much needed income, clearly provides “wider community benefits such a new recreational facility that will be used by the local community as well as visitors” and clearly does “increase the quality and diversity of the tourism offer in the local area and benefit the local economy”. Therefore the demolition of it would involve the imposition of considerable harm to the town under this policy. Harm that, obviously, since the structure has been there since the early 2000s under the direct control of the local authority without any threat of removal, was deemed unnecessary to cause up until now.

13. The Retention of Existing Local Community Buildings and Structures p.117

“6.3.3 The loss of valued local community facilities and services can significantly reduce a community’s ability to meet its day to day needs and will also have an adverse impact on the social interaction and wellbeing of that community.” 

Demolishing this structure would materially reduce our “community’s ability to meet its day to day needs” for safe storage and changing for seas swimmers. It will also have an “adverse impact on the social interaction and wellbeing” of our community. It already has done, as evidenced by the many letters to the council about the enforced closure of the facility and the 1000 strong petition that will be sent to the council.

“6.3.4 Proposals which would result in the loss of a community facility must demonstrate that efforts have been made to retain the facility and that opportunities for conversion to alternative community uses have been explored. “

What efforts have been made to retain the facility? This application proposes no alternative community use, just open space that will not contribute to the cultural, social, leisure, sporting or economic benefit of the community.

14. COM3. p.118 states,

“COM3. THE RETENTION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES i) Planning permission for proposals, including change of use, which result in the loss of local community buildings or structures (including sites which were most recently used for this purpose where the use has ceased or the building has been demolished), will not be permitted unless: • it can be demonstrated that there is no local need for the facility or that such a facility is no longer likely to be viable; and  • an appropriate alternative community use to meet local needs is not needed or likely to be viable.”

Clearly this demolition should not be approved because in the application it has not been demonstrated that “there is no local need for the facility or that such a facility is no longer likely to be viable”. In fact the complete opposite is true.

Plus, there is obviously, for all of the reasons already stated, an “appropriate alternative” is clearly needed and is viable. Just this policy on its own should result in the rejection of this application and the reinstatement of the swimming community non-profit company.

15. COM4. NEW OR IMPROVED LOCAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES p.120

This policy states, 

“iii) Proposals to enhance water sports or marine based recreational provision will be permitted, subject to the protection of any land and maritime nature conservation in the area and potential impact on the existing use of the recreation facility.”

Clearly this structure and its most recent deployment by the community with the permission of the council DOES “enhance water sports or marine based recreational provision” and should be permitted to remain. It has been present in the conservation area without objection since the early 2000s and has a positive social and economic impact on the existing use of the recreational facility.

16. COM 5. P121 definitely applies in full to this application. It states, 

“COM5. 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. “

Clearly, just on the basis of this single policy the application should be rejected.

17. COM 6. applies to the application in full. It states,

“COM6. THE PROVISION OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING FACILITIES i) Proposals for the provision of new/replacement facilities or the expansion of existing education and training facilities will be supported, provided that:  • The location is well linked in terms of accessibility to the local catchment (taking into account how this may change through the development of strategic housing sites); and • Any loss of facilities consequential to the development is re-provided to the same or higher standard.”

Again, just on this policy the application should be rejected since there has been no effort to address “Any loss of facilities consequential to the development”. The structure is used as a training facility. In fact the world record holding oldest female Channel swimmer, Linda Ashmore, used the facility last summer to train for her world record breaking feat. If it goes and no appropriate alternative is “re-provided to the same or higher standard” then this policy will be violated.

We hope that this analysis and referencing of the specific local plan policies that relate to this application will be taken seriously and result in the rejection of the application and if not then a required condition that the landlord compensate the swimming community in the form of WBSS CIC by allowing them to occupy and operate from the structure as they have been for the last two years, up until the time that suitable and appropriate alternative accommodation has been provided for them by the leaseholder and/or the freeholder (the council).

Sincerely

Jason West

Director

Weymouth Bay Sea Swimmers CIC