Council withdraws objection to football stadium site

Dorset Echo: Council withdraws objection to football stadium site Council withdraws objection to football stadium site

COUNCILLORS have agreed to withdraw one of their reasons for objecting to redevelop Weymouth Football Stadium as housing.

West Dorset District Council refused an application by the Wessex Delivery LLP to redevelop the stadium site with up to 170 houses in October last year.

The reasons for refusal included the fact that the site proposed residential development outside the existing development boundary, the loss of playing fields with no firm alternative and the need for a section 106 agreement or other form of undertaking to guarantee affordable housing and local amenity contributions.

The decision to refuse the application was appealed and will now be considered by an independent planning inspector.

However, before that happens members of the council's development control committee have agreed to withdraw the first reason for refusal.

Planning officer Andrew Martin told councillors that because the council now recognised the need for a larger housing supply in the coming years after carrying out further work on its proposed local plan, it could not justify a refusal on the grounds that it did not need to develop outside existing boundaries.

He said: “At that time our view was we didn't need to breach the development boundary in order to reach housing numbers, that situation has clearly changed.”

Mr Martin said that the council's chances of defending this reason for refusal at appeal were nonexistent.

He said: “To progress that particular reason we would stand no chance at all of defending that one at appeal.”

Mr Martin said that if a satisfactory section 106 agreement could be drawn up with the developers that third reason for refusal could also be withdrawn, leaving only the concern about the loss of playing fields with no firm alternative provision.

The councils agreed to withdraw the first reason for refusal and to inform the Planning Inspectorate and appellant of the decision.

Comments (5)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:15pm Thu 19 Jun 14

annotater says...

Pockets of the land owner and conflict of interest
comes to mind.
Pockets of the land owner and conflict of interest comes to mind. annotater
  • Score: 0

6:20pm Thu 19 Jun 14

cosmick says...

No bal8s. Stand up and be counted, you just keep caving in.
No bal8s. Stand up and be counted, you just keep caving in. cosmick
  • Score: 0

11:54pm Thu 19 Jun 14

The Muffler says...

Are all councils this useless or is it just the ones in this area?

None of them seem to have a clue what they're doing, how on earth any of them would survive if they were private sector businesses is totally beyond me!
Are all councils this useless or is it just the ones in this area? None of them seem to have a clue what they're doing, how on earth any of them would survive if they were private sector businesses is totally beyond me! The Muffler
  • Score: 2

10:50pm Fri 20 Jun 14

MrTomSmith says...

I think by the time this is really sorted Curtis will be about 85 and too freacking old to benefit from it. Dirty horrible man
I think by the time this is really sorted Curtis will be about 85 and too freacking old to benefit from it. Dirty horrible man MrTomSmith
  • Score: 2

11:26am Sat 21 Jun 14

JACKC says...

..as if Martin or any other councillor gives a monkeys about loss of playing fields!! Oh, don't make me laugh!!!
..as if Martin or any other councillor gives a monkeys about loss of playing fields!! Oh, don't make me laugh!!! JACKC
  • Score: 0

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