Weymouth Football Club at the centre of new homes plan clash

Dorset Echo: KEY SITE: The area for the planned development KEY SITE: The area for the planned development

BATTLE lines are being drawn up over a fight to build up to 170 homes on the site of Weymouth Football Club.

The issue whether to build at the Bob Lucas Stadium is set to be thrashed out at a public inquiry when a government planning inspector will hear arguments for and against redevelopment.

West Dorset District Council, which refused an application by developers Wessex Delivery LLP to build on the football club site last year, will argue the land in question falls outside its development boundary and that it has a ‘robust’ five-year land supply for housing.

Council chiefs will also say the plan would lead to loss of playing fields with no firm plan for any alternative.

The applicant, which owns land surrounding the Bob Lucas Stadium, believes it is a sustainable site and will deliver much-needed housing including affordable homes. It has set out its case arguing the principal of development in papers lodged with the council.

Preparations for a public inquiry come as the shareholders of Weymouth Football Club agree to continue talks with Wessex Delivery regarding a potential move to Lodmoor as part of a ‘community sports stadium’ plan.

That is a separate application by Wessex Delivery to build a new home for the Terras on an old landfill site off Preston Beach Road and it has sparked concern in the community due to it being close to the Lodmoor SSSI, country park and bird reserve.

Meanwhile, a date for a public inquiry into redevelopment at the Bob Lucas Stadium off Radipole Lane has yet to be fixed.

The refused outline planning application envisages 150-170 homes, public open space, convenience store and parking.

The entrance to the site falls within Weymouth and Portland’s boundary and the applicant is also appealing that part of the plan as it claims the borough council has failed to determine it in time.

Stating the case for development, the applicant says: “It will provide much-needed market and affordable housing and any harm arising is clearly outweighed by the considerable benefits.

“The development can be accommodated at the site and the relocation of WFC’s stadium can be secured through a planning obligation.”

West Dorset District Councillor for Chickerell and chairman of the planning committee, Ian Gardner, said: “The application was refused by officers under delegated powers taking account, amongst other things, of Sport England’s advice.”

He added: “One would expect the government inspector to determine the application in accordance with extant and emerging planning policies.”

Crucial vote in favour of talks

WEYMOUTH FC has yet to make an official statement about its emergency general meeting last weekend when shareholders met.

At the meeting, the majority (99.6 per cent) voted in favour of a decision to continue talks with landowners Wessex Delivery regarding a potential move to Lodmoor.

The club withdrew its objection to the Lodmoor stadium plan after discussions with Wessex Delivery led to an agreement that the club will not be forced to move from its current home without giving its consent. That prompted the EGM to gauge the views of shareholders.

The Lodmoor stadium plan has drawn many objections.

As well as scores of letters from residents, and businesses include the Sea Life Centre, objections have also received by Sport England, the RSPB and Dorset Police’s crime prevention team, who are concerned about effects on the neighbourhood.

This proposal has yet to be decided by Weymouth and Portland Borough Council.

Comments (37)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:29am Sat 31 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

So what's new then? ...............Nothi
ng.
So what's new then? ...............Nothi ng. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 3

9:12am Sat 31 May 14

Caption Sensible says...

Let it go and move back into town. The move from the Rec has been an utter disaster.
Let it go and move back into town. The move from the Rec has been an utter disaster. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 3

9:18am Sat 31 May 14

Douglas Mc says...

Housing site allocation in Chickerell in local plan without the stadium already equals housing growth of 40+%. Can't see an inspector agreeing to more homes at the stadium especially given loss of potential for an improved leisure complex serving both communities.
Housing site allocation in Chickerell in local plan without the stadium already equals housing growth of 40+%. Can't see an inspector agreeing to more homes at the stadium especially given loss of potential for an improved leisure complex serving both communities. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 9

9:26am Sat 31 May 14

Waynerooni says...

Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing. Waynerooni
  • Score: 11

9:52am Sat 31 May 14

ksmain says...

Good luck to them.

I certainly wouldn't buy any home there - squashed in a site between an industrial estate, a busy main road and the Police Cells.
Good luck to them. I certainly wouldn't buy any home there - squashed in a site between an industrial estate, a busy main road and the Police Cells. ksmain
  • Score: 13

10:02am Sat 31 May 14

PHonnor says...

Waynerooni wrote:
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
A swimming pool and leisure facilities don't earn the big bucks WDP are after so a non starter. Does WDP have a plan B if/when the public enquiry agrees with the original decision?
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.[/p][/quote]A swimming pool and leisure facilities don't earn the big bucks WDP are after so a non starter. Does WDP have a plan B if/when the public enquiry agrees with the original decision? PHonnor
  • Score: 4

10:48am Sat 31 May 14

Caption Sensible says...

Waynerooni wrote:
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
The Rec was built on a marsh. Plenty of people went there.
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.[/p][/quote]The Rec was built on a marsh. Plenty of people went there. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 4

10:53am Sat 31 May 14

JamesYoung says...

Bold statement: we don't need more houses. We need less bank lending.
Houses aren't affordable because banks lend 5-6* salary. Restrict this to 3* salary and prices would fall.
There are 600,000 more 50-54 year olds in this country than 10-14 year olds and that includes children of immigrants. Every age group is shrinking in size.
Bold statement: we don't need more houses. We need less bank lending. Houses aren't affordable because banks lend 5-6* salary. Restrict this to 3* salary and prices would fall. There are 600,000 more 50-54 year olds in this country than 10-14 year olds and that includes children of immigrants. Every age group is shrinking in size. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

10:55am Sat 31 May 14

Caption Sensible says...

Waynerooni wrote:
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
Can you please name some better sites for housing?

I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town.

One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision.

This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.[/p][/quote]Can you please name some better sites for housing? I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town. One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision. This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home.. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 2

11:05am Sat 31 May 14

Douglas Mc says...

There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.
There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 2

11:09am Sat 31 May 14

Caption Sensible says...

Douglas Mc wrote:
There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.
Where though?
[quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote: There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.[/p][/quote]Where though? Caption Sensible
  • Score: 0

11:16am Sat 31 May 14

Rocksalt says...

JamesYoung wrote:
Bold statement: we don't need more houses. We need less bank lending. Houses aren't affordable because banks lend 5-6* salary. Restrict this to 3* salary and prices would fall. There are 600,000 more 50-54 year olds in this country than 10-14 year olds and that includes children of immigrants. Every age group is shrinking in size.
The number of people is not the only factor in determining the number of homes required. The number of people living alone is increasing exponentially, which increases the number of households.

That said, I agree that you don't necessarily need to build more houses. There is plenty of scope for converting existing houses, albeit that can cause problems of a different kind.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: Bold statement: we don't need more houses. We need less bank lending. Houses aren't affordable because banks lend 5-6* salary. Restrict this to 3* salary and prices would fall. There are 600,000 more 50-54 year olds in this country than 10-14 year olds and that includes children of immigrants. Every age group is shrinking in size.[/p][/quote]The number of people is not the only factor in determining the number of homes required. The number of people living alone is increasing exponentially, which increases the number of households. That said, I agree that you don't necessarily need to build more houses. There is plenty of scope for converting existing houses, albeit that can cause problems of a different kind. Rocksalt
  • Score: 6

11:20am Sat 31 May 14

PHonnor says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
Can you please name some better sites for housing?

I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town.

One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision.

This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..
How does weymouth benefit when houses are built, thus council tax collected in an area currently cinder WDDC control?
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.[/p][/quote]Can you please name some better sites for housing? I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town. One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision. This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..[/p][/quote]How does weymouth benefit when houses are built, thus council tax collected in an area currently cinder WDDC control? PHonnor
  • Score: 2

11:22am Sat 31 May 14

PHonnor says...

PHonnor wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
Can you please name some better sites for housing?

I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town.

One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision.

This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..
How does weymouth benefit when houses are built, thus council tax collected in an area currently cinder WDDC control?
Or under even!
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.[/p][/quote]Can you please name some better sites for housing? I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town. One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision. This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..[/p][/quote]How does weymouth benefit when houses are built, thus council tax collected in an area currently cinder WDDC control?[/p][/quote]Or under even! PHonnor
  • Score: 0

11:30am Sat 31 May 14

Caption Sensible says...

PHonnor wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there.
WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.
Can you please name some better sites for housing?

I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town.

One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision.

This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..
How does weymouth benefit when houses are built, thus council tax collected in an area currently cinder WDDC control?
It will all be under WDDC control shortly. Your council tax will be going to.... Dorchester. It was not a merger, it was a takeover, and as the former mayor said. 67,000 additional persons added to the WDDC empire.
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Builders take advantage of naïve football club - there's a new one!. If WFC are shoved off to a rubbish dump no one will go there. WFC shouldn't move. Just get a swimming pool and more leisure facilities built next to the ground. Plenty of better sites for housing.[/p][/quote]Can you please name some better sites for housing? I think people need to get used to the fact that the Weymouth area is going to get much bigger in the coming years. A lot of this new build will be to the west of the town. One of the reasons why the joint local plan was thrown out was because of the lack of ambition shown by the two local authorities in regards to housing provision. This area desperately needs some new blood, and the well-educated to be given the chance to return home, or set up home..[/p][/quote]How does weymouth benefit when houses are built, thus council tax collected in an area currently cinder WDDC control?[/p][/quote]It will all be under WDDC control shortly. Your council tax will be going to.... Dorchester. It was not a merger, it was a takeover, and as the former mayor said. 67,000 additional persons added to the WDDC empire. Caption Sensible
  • Score: 5

1:02pm Sat 31 May 14

Douglas Mc says...

Caption Sensible wrote:
Douglas Mc wrote:
There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.
Where though?
The existing LP has some 350 home sites in Chickerell - the last 250 off Putton Lane commenced recently. The draft LP has some 900 homes more for Chickerell.. Other sites not yet started include Sherborne, Dorchester etc.
[quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote: There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.[/p][/quote]Where though?[/p][/quote]The existing LP has some 350 home sites in Chickerell - the last 250 off Putton Lane commenced recently. The draft LP has some 900 homes more for Chickerell.. Other sites not yet started include Sherborne, Dorchester etc. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 3

3:20pm Sat 31 May 14

Kingtuttut says...

Another own goal by the Terras - lol
Another own goal by the Terras - lol Kingtuttut
  • Score: -3

3:45pm Sat 31 May 14

PHonnor says...

Douglas Mc wrote:
Caption Sensible wrote:
Douglas Mc wrote:
There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.
Where though?
The existing LP has some 350 home sites in Chickerell - the last 250 off Putton Lane commenced recently. The draft LP has some 900 homes more for Chickerell.. Other sites not yet started include Sherborne, Dorchester etc.
And WDP main argument is they believe there is insufficient housing planned and they are also trying to take advantage of both councils inability to put together a suitable housing plan, permission by appeal which I'm sure we will see a lot more of
[quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Caption Sensible[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Douglas Mc[/bold] wrote: There have been ample housing sites allocated in the past but builders have not built them or built them as quickly as the Councils intended. The draft plan is to be considered by the Inspector in (?) a few months time.[/p][/quote]Where though?[/p][/quote]The existing LP has some 350 home sites in Chickerell - the last 250 off Putton Lane commenced recently. The draft LP has some 900 homes more for Chickerell.. Other sites not yet started include Sherborne, Dorchester etc.[/p][/quote]And WDP main argument is they believe there is insufficient housing planned and they are also trying to take advantage of both councils inability to put together a suitable housing plan, permission by appeal which I'm sure we will see a lot more of PHonnor
  • Score: 2

5:53pm Sat 31 May 14

Waynerooni says...

Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.
Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded. Waynerooni
  • Score: 10

6:04pm Sat 31 May 14

PHonnor says...

Waynerooni wrote:
Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.
The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.[/p][/quote]The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor PHonnor
  • Score: 4

6:11pm Sat 31 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

I have never read so much rubbish in all my life...............
I have never read so much rubbish in all my life............... MrTomSmith
  • Score: -1

6:19pm Sat 31 May 14

Waynerooni says...

PHonnor wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.
The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor
I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.[/p][/quote]The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor[/p][/quote]I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.) Waynerooni
  • Score: 3

6:30pm Sat 31 May 14

PHonnor says...

Waynerooni wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.
The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor
I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)
WDP own the speedway track, they want to build houses but yes the council own the marsh but outsourced the running of the pool, don't know how long for though. I just hope the lodmoor decision process is transparent and the planning committee make the correct decision.
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.[/p][/quote]The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor[/p][/quote]I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)[/p][/quote]WDP own the speedway track, they want to build houses but yes the council own the marsh but outsourced the running of the pool, don't know how long for though. I just hope the lodmoor decision process is transparent and the planning committee make the correct decision. PHonnor
  • Score: 4

7:42pm Sat 31 May 14

Douglas Mc says...

If Lodmoor site good enough for a stadium it is good enough for housing which W&P can develop to make money. The Knightsdale Rd swimming pool could be redeveloped for housing thus providing monies for a new pool at an improved leisure complex at he Wessex.. IF WDP can't get housing at the Wessex might offer them a chance of some return.
If Lodmoor site good enough for a stadium it is good enough for housing which W&P can develop to make money. The Knightsdale Rd swimming pool could be redeveloped for housing thus providing monies for a new pool at an improved leisure complex at he Wessex.. IF WDP can't get housing at the Wessex might offer them a chance of some return. Douglas Mc
  • Score: 9

12:08pm Sun 1 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

Waynerooni wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.
The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor
I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)
"A stadium with a speedway track with a carpark in the middle" Do you want fairy lights or laser lights as floodlights? Or perhaps the condor ferry terminal right next to ASDA, handy for stocking up on cheap food to take to expensive Guernsey, Then maybe the Pavilion moved to the Park and Ride that will move traffic out of town. What do you think Waynerooni ?
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.[/p][/quote]The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor[/p][/quote]I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)[/p][/quote]"A stadium with a speedway track with a carpark in the middle" Do you want fairy lights or laser lights as floodlights? Or perhaps the condor ferry terminal right next to ASDA, handy for stocking up on cheap food to take to expensive Guernsey, Then maybe the Pavilion moved to the Park and Ride that will move traffic out of town. What do you think Waynerooni ? MrTomSmith
  • Score: -3

12:41pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Waynerooni says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
PHonnor wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.
The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor
I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)
"A stadium with a speedway track with a carpark in the middle" Do you want fairy lights or laser lights as floodlights? Or perhaps the condor ferry terminal right next to ASDA, handy for stocking up on cheap food to take to expensive Guernsey, Then maybe the Pavilion moved to the Park and Ride that will move traffic out of town. What do you think Waynerooni ?
Don't understand your comment Tom. Look at the aerial photo and you can see that a new stadium would sit well on the former speedway track leaving the centre bit of the site for parking and a new pool/leisure complex on front parts. no idea what the rest of your stuff means - I just think the WFC stadium is already in a good place that wont annoy neighbours or wildlife or flood and the club should work with the council to make the area a leisure centre that would serve Chickerell and Weymouth and be used by families when its too wet to go to the beach.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: Will the appeal judge ignore the fact that that that there are better housing sites mentioned above and at Littllemoor? The town needs a new swimming pool for locals and tourists and the council should build one next to WFC stadium and put houses on the old ones site. Ive seen loads of objections to Lodmoor and it wont generate more income - just get rusty and flooded.[/p][/quote]The council don't own the land so cant build a new swimming pool, plus they are skint but your right about lodmoor[/p][/quote]I thought the Council owned the swimming pool and Marsh sites? They should be working with WFC to build a new leisure centre and pool and maybe put the stadium on the speedway track with car parking in the middle. The Council would make money from housing on the old sites to pay for it and WFC would benefit from visitors. Win win (except for those trying to fob WFC of.)[/p][/quote]"A stadium with a speedway track with a carpark in the middle" Do you want fairy lights or laser lights as floodlights? Or perhaps the condor ferry terminal right next to ASDA, handy for stocking up on cheap food to take to expensive Guernsey, Then maybe the Pavilion moved to the Park and Ride that will move traffic out of town. What do you think Waynerooni ?[/p][/quote]Don't understand your comment Tom. Look at the aerial photo and you can see that a new stadium would sit well on the former speedway track leaving the centre bit of the site for parking and a new pool/leisure complex on front parts. no idea what the rest of your stuff means - I just think the WFC stadium is already in a good place that wont annoy neighbours or wildlife or flood and the club should work with the council to make the area a leisure centre that would serve Chickerell and Weymouth and be used by families when its too wet to go to the beach. Waynerooni
  • Score: 5

1:17pm Sun 1 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?
How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many? MrTomSmith
  • Score: -2

4:52pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Waynerooni says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?
have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?[/p][/quote]have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped. Waynerooni
  • Score: 4

6:18pm Sun 1 Jun 14

weymouthfox says...

What ever happened to the Government's localism agenda? Why are local councillors- however poor they may be- likely to be overuled by an inspector descending from his or her ivory tower? This is all about profit for Wessex Delivery and not about Weymouth Football Club, who should never have moved from the Rec. Now there was another strange land deal!
What ever happened to the Government's localism agenda? Why are local councillors- however poor they may be- likely to be overuled by an inspector descending from his or her ivory tower? This is all about profit for Wessex Delivery and not about Weymouth Football Club, who should never have moved from the Rec. Now there was another strange land deal! weymouthfox
  • Score: 7

6:43pm Sun 1 Jun 14

PHonnor says...

weymouthfox wrote:
What ever happened to the Government's localism agenda? Why are local councillors- however poor they may be- likely to be overuled by an inspector descending from his or her ivory tower? This is all about profit for Wessex Delivery and not about Weymouth Football Club, who should never have moved from the Rec. Now there was another strange land deal!
I believe 4 out of 5 times the public enquiry agree with the original decision so we will see if this ever happens. What WDP do with the land if they can't build is anyone's guess but it seems they are confident enough as they will not confirm what plan B is.
[quote][p][bold]weymouthfox[/bold] wrote: What ever happened to the Government's localism agenda? Why are local councillors- however poor they may be- likely to be overuled by an inspector descending from his or her ivory tower? This is all about profit for Wessex Delivery and not about Weymouth Football Club, who should never have moved from the Rec. Now there was another strange land deal![/p][/quote]I believe 4 out of 5 times the public enquiry agree with the original decision so we will see if this ever happens. What WDP do with the land if they can't build is anyone's guess but it seems they are confident enough as they will not confirm what plan B is. PHonnor
  • Score: 1

8:50pm Sun 1 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

Waynerooni wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?
have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.
I give up.....
[quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?[/p][/quote]have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.[/p][/quote]I give up..... MrTomSmith
  • Score: -5

10:47pm Sun 1 Jun 14

Waynerooni says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?
have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.
I give up.....
Are you not capable of thinking what might be possible if the planning applications get turned down and Morgan Sindel decide they would be better off working with WFC and the council? Best you do give up - its clearly getting you all agitated
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?[/p][/quote]have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.[/p][/quote]I give up.....[/p][/quote]Are you not capable of thinking what might be possible if the planning applications get turned down and Morgan Sindel decide they would be better off working with WFC and the council? Best you do give up - its clearly getting you all agitated Waynerooni
  • Score: 7

8:39am Mon 2 Jun 14

leo210856 says...

What is clear that whilst the reporter may have possibly scanned the appeal- There are some very interesting and worrying comments in the WDDP stated case, but just as much of a worry is that I suspect that few, if any of those who have commented have looked at the appeal documents
What is clear that whilst the reporter may have possibly scanned the appeal- There are some very interesting and worrying comments in the WDDP stated case, but just as much of a worry is that I suspect that few, if any of those who have commented have looked at the appeal documents leo210856
  • Score: -2

10:14am Mon 2 Jun 14

elloello1980 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Waynerooni wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?
have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.
I give up.....
MrTomSmith, you're weak!
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Waynerooni[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: How many more times do you need telling, WFC or the Council DON'T OWN THAT LAND!!! Please tell me you are a troll. Because no-one can be this stupid, how many times do you need telling? Come on how many?[/p][/quote]have you got some issues Tom ? or a vested interest ? I know WDP control the land around the stadium and I know the Council don't own any of the land.I'm simply saying what I think would be a good outcome for WFC and the community if the stupid idea to force the club to a landfill site on the edge of a marsh is dropped.[/p][/quote]I give up.....[/p][/quote]MrTomSmith, you're weak! elloello1980
  • Score: 3

11:34am Mon 2 Jun 14

leo210856 says...

PHonnor wrote:
weymouthfox wrote:
What ever happened to the Government's localism agenda? Why are local councillors- however poor they may be- likely to be overuled by an inspector descending from his or her ivory tower? This is all about profit for Wessex Delivery and not about Weymouth Football Club, who should never have moved from the Rec. Now there was another strange land deal!
I believe 4 out of 5 times the public enquiry agree with the original decision so we will see if this ever happens. What WDP do with the land if they can't build is anyone's guess but it seems they are confident enough as they will not confirm what plan B is.
Far from 4 out of 5.

The real worry is that at hearings the latest report from the planning directorate reports that 46% of appeals in respect of this type of development are successful. Up from 36% just two years prior
http://www.planningp
ortal.gov.uk/uploads
/pins/statistics_eng
/annual_2012_13.pdf
[quote][p][bold]PHonnor[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]weymouthfox[/bold] wrote: What ever happened to the Government's localism agenda? Why are local councillors- however poor they may be- likely to be overuled by an inspector descending from his or her ivory tower? This is all about profit for Wessex Delivery and not about Weymouth Football Club, who should never have moved from the Rec. Now there was another strange land deal![/p][/quote]I believe 4 out of 5 times the public enquiry agree with the original decision so we will see if this ever happens. What WDP do with the land if they can't build is anyone's guess but it seems they are confident enough as they will not confirm what plan B is.[/p][/quote]Far from 4 out of 5. The real worry is that at hearings the latest report from the planning directorate reports that 46% of appeals in respect of this type of development are successful. Up from 36% just two years prior http://www.planningp ortal.gov.uk/uploads /pins/statistics_eng /annual_2012_13.pdf leo210856
  • Score: 1

4:25pm Mon 2 Jun 14

JamesYoung says...

Rocksalt wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
Bold statement: we don't need more houses. We need less bank lending. Houses aren't affordable because banks lend 5-6* salary. Restrict this to 3* salary and prices would fall. There are 600,000 more 50-54 year olds in this country than 10-14 year olds and that includes children of immigrants. Every age group is shrinking in size.
The number of people is not the only factor in determining the number of homes required. The number of people living alone is increasing exponentially, which increases the number of households.

That said, I agree that you don't necessarily need to build more houses. There is plenty of scope for converting existing houses, albeit that can cause problems of a different kind.
The powers that be would certainly like you to believe that prices are being driven up by my people living alone, wouldn't they?
How do you explain the stagnant property market between 2008 and 2012?
When you buy a house, you buy the right not to pay rents in the future. Therefore if there was pressure on housing, you'd expect to see prices AND rents increase. Between 1997 and 2008, rents rose far, far less than prices and even those small increases can be explained by the fact that BTL investors were paying more for their purchase and thus charging more for rent.
Believe me, we don't need more houses. We need less finance.
If you have 99 people looking at 100 houses, prices will fall. If you have 100 people competing for 99 houses prices will rise. However, demand for housing is driven by "enabled buyers" not simply he number of people in the country. Therefore, the more money the banks lend, the higher prices will be (since everybody can afford to bid higher).
The only winners here are the banks. I think we are on the verge of a property crash, but it won't be them that lose out.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: Bold statement: we don't need more houses. We need less bank lending. Houses aren't affordable because banks lend 5-6* salary. Restrict this to 3* salary and prices would fall. There are 600,000 more 50-54 year olds in this country than 10-14 year olds and that includes children of immigrants. Every age group is shrinking in size.[/p][/quote]The number of people is not the only factor in determining the number of homes required. The number of people living alone is increasing exponentially, which increases the number of households. That said, I agree that you don't necessarily need to build more houses. There is plenty of scope for converting existing houses, albeit that can cause problems of a different kind.[/p][/quote]The powers that be would certainly like you to believe that prices are being driven up by my people living alone, wouldn't they? How do you explain the stagnant property market between 2008 and 2012? When you buy a house, you buy the right not to pay rents in the future. Therefore if there was pressure on housing, you'd expect to see prices AND rents increase. Between 1997 and 2008, rents rose far, far less than prices and even those small increases can be explained by the fact that BTL investors were paying more for their purchase and thus charging more for rent. Believe me, we don't need more houses. We need less finance. If you have 99 people looking at 100 houses, prices will fall. If you have 100 people competing for 99 houses prices will rise. However, demand for housing is driven by "enabled buyers" not simply he number of people in the country. Therefore, the more money the banks lend, the higher prices will be (since everybody can afford to bid higher). The only winners here are the banks. I think we are on the verge of a property crash, but it won't be them that lose out. JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

8:56pm Mon 2 Jun 14

Mr Speedway says...

I am sick to death, of reading about this stadium. The answer is easy: No! to a move to new football stadium. First thing first: Keep the Football at this stadium. Second is: Return the speedway back to the stadium and let keep this stadium once & for all. This stadium have been at Weymouth for a long time now, so just keep it. It is doing a good job. So No to more houses!
I am sick to death, of reading about this stadium. The answer is easy: No! to a move to new football stadium. First thing first: Keep the Football at this stadium. Second is: Return the speedway back to the stadium and let keep this stadium once & for all. This stadium have been at Weymouth for a long time now, so just keep it. It is doing a good job. So No to more houses! Mr Speedway
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree