Bumpers Lane housing development approved

Bumpers Lane housing development approved

Bumpers Lane housing development approved

First published in News

PLANS for a 64-home development on Portland have been approved by councillors.

A proposal for the site off Bumpers Lane went before Weymouth and Portland Borough Council this morning.

It came after Portland Stone’s original application for 75 homes was rejected in May.

The application sees the proposed development reduced in size and a village green has been incorporated in to the grounds.

WPBC councillors voted for the development nine to one.

Cllr Ian Bruce said he welcomed the development ‘gladly’ whilst cllr Sany West said she had ‘reluctantly’ voted it through.

A further proposal of the design, access and scale will be submitted in the coming months.

More to follow.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:19pm Wed 23 Jul 14

JACKC says...

SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!! wow a village green!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!Obviously the turning point in the vote and something to cherish for years and years. Sandy West 'reluctantly' voted it through???? Can't you think for yourself, and make a decision? Why vote it through if you were 'reluctant'? ... and I don't live on Portland. Good luck with the ever increasing extra traffic getting on/off the Island, and good luck in preventing any more land being turned into more estates.
SURPRISE SURPRISE!!!!!!!!! wow a village green!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !Obviously the turning point in the vote and something to cherish for years and years. Sandy West 'reluctantly' voted it through???? Can't you think for yourself, and make a decision? Why vote it through if you were 'reluctant'? ... and I don't live on Portland. Good luck with the ever increasing extra traffic getting on/off the Island, and good luck in preventing any more land being turned into more estates. JACKC
  • Score: 7

4:08pm Wed 23 Jul 14

cosmick says...

Ithought the same "reluctant" !
Maybe voters should be a bit more reluctant when voting for people who make these dicisions in the future.
I think its just a simple yes or no.
Ithought the same "reluctant" ! Maybe voters should be a bit more reluctant when voting for people who make these dicisions in the future. I think its just a simple yes or no. cosmick
  • Score: 4

4:44pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Schrodinger's Cat says...

Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.
Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it. Schrodinger's Cat
  • Score: 6

4:51pm Wed 23 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

"cllr Sany West said she had ‘reluctantly’ voted it through" That must be Councillor Sandy West. Really this is just typical of complete and utter RUBBISH we have to put with with year after year after year. How can you possibly reluctantly vote yes. You must vote NO!

Right well all those in Sandy West's constituency need to ask some questions here, Why did she not not vote No, but reluctant yes. Get a grip of the situation Mrs West, because this is just not good enough, it really isn't.
"cllr Sany West said she had ‘reluctantly’ voted it through" That must be Councillor Sandy West. Really this is just typical of complete and utter RUBBISH we have to put with with year after year after year. How can you possibly reluctantly vote yes. You must vote NO! Right well all those in Sandy West's constituency need to ask some questions here, Why did she not not vote No, but reluctant yes. Get a grip of the situation Mrs West, because this is just not good enough, it really isn't. MrTomSmith
  • Score: 5

4:52pm Wed 23 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.
Of course you can, utter rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Schrodinger's Cat[/bold] wrote: Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.[/p][/quote]Of course you can, utter rubbish. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -2

5:12pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.
Of course you can, utter rubbish.
Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Schrodinger's Cat[/bold] wrote: Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.[/p][/quote]Of course you can, utter rubbish.[/p][/quote]Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us. Rocksalt
  • Score: 6

5:50pm Wed 23 Jul 14

southwellman says...

Does this council ever listen to the people it is supposed to be representing.. the tools all of them!
Does this council ever listen to the people it is supposed to be representing.. the tools all of them! southwellman
  • Score: 3

6:33pm Wed 23 Jul 14

portland rebel says...

Rocksalt wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.
Of course you can, utter rubbish.
Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.
our council are such experts at wasting money, it would make a change if they used some of our money on things that matter to us.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Schrodinger's Cat[/bold] wrote: Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.[/p][/quote]Of course you can, utter rubbish.[/p][/quote]Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.[/p][/quote]our council are such experts at wasting money, it would make a change if they used some of our money on things that matter to us. portland rebel
  • Score: 2

7:40pm Wed 23 Jul 14

MrTomSmith says...

Just vote for what you believe is right for the people you are representing, if they all did that. then we might get somewhere. While there are hidden agendas and party politics involved then we never will.

I don't have to prove anything to anyone, the point I am making is you vote for what you think is right and "reluctantly no" is not right. Who say's they will win the appeal?

Oh of course it fits in perfectly with your point, but if they lost the appeal, then we would lose nothing, correct? Two sides to this.
Just vote for what you believe is right for the people you are representing, if they all did that. then we might get somewhere. While there are hidden agendas and party politics involved then we never will. I don't have to prove anything to anyone, the point I am making is you vote for what you think is right and "reluctantly no" is not right. Who say's they will win the appeal? Oh of course it fits in perfectly with your point, but if they lost the appeal, then we would lose nothing, correct? Two sides to this. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -2

9:36pm Wed 23 Jul 14

cosmick says...

Rocksalt wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.
Of course you can, utter rubbish.
Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.
If he thought she should vote against it see should.
Will she vote for travellers sites because if the go to the next stage it will cost our L/A money?
Rollover and play dead then.
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Schrodinger's Cat[/bold] wrote: Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.[/p][/quote]Of course you can, utter rubbish.[/p][/quote]Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.[/p][/quote]If he thought she should vote against it see should. Will she vote for travellers sites because if the go to the next stage it will cost our L/A money? Rollover and play dead then. cosmick
  • Score: -3

10:30pm Wed 23 Jul 14

Rocksalt says...

portland rebel wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Schrodinger's Cat wrote:
Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.
Of course you can, utter rubbish.
Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.
our council are such experts at wasting money, it would make a change if they used some of our money on things that matter to us.
Ahh, my mistake, I didn't realise that you were able to speak on behalf of every single person on Portland.
[quote][p][bold]portland rebel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Schrodinger's Cat[/bold] wrote: Planning decisions are dictated by legislation and regulations. The committee has strict guidelines to follow - you can't turn down an application just because it might be unpopular. If you do, the developers can go to appeal which can cost the local authority a lot of money if the appeal is upheld. Sandy West probably said she was reluctant because she knew this would not be popular but possibly had no legal grounds on which to oppose it.[/p][/quote]Of course you can, utter rubbish.[/p][/quote]Yes, you can reject it and then, as Schrödinger's Cat has said, you risk wasting a load of money when the developers appeal. Unless, of course, you know differently. If so, perhaps you could enlighten us.[/p][/quote]our council are such experts at wasting money, it would make a change if they used some of our money on things that matter to us.[/p][/quote]Ahh, my mistake, I didn't realise that you were able to speak on behalf of every single person on Portland. Rocksalt
  • Score: 1

6:42am Thu 24 Jul 14

southwellman says...

Are people getting sick and fed up being sold the line affordable housing.. The houses will be sold for an excess of 100k and the average wage in Weymouth could not afford a mortgage on that.. What will happen is the houses will be brought by people for the rental market.. But the council do nothing to help the local people, meaning the people who need the houses will be paying more in rent.. The island cannot sustain all the extra traffic and local GP.. But they will say because we have an academy the schools will be fine.. Sandy west is a disgrace to the Island I think as she should have voted no. How does one reluctantly vote yes anyway?
Are people getting sick and fed up being sold the line affordable housing.. The houses will be sold for an excess of 100k and the average wage in Weymouth could not afford a mortgage on that.. What will happen is the houses will be brought by people for the rental market.. But the council do nothing to help the local people, meaning the people who need the houses will be paying more in rent.. The island cannot sustain all the extra traffic and local GP.. But they will say because we have an academy the schools will be fine.. Sandy west is a disgrace to the Island I think as she should have voted no. How does one reluctantly vote yes anyway? southwellman
  • Score: 3

12:17pm Thu 24 Jul 14

PortlandYoof says...

I'm saving for a mortgage currently and after living in Underhill, I wouldn't allow my worst enemy to so much as walk through fortuneswell in the light of day anymore, so I'd never consider a house there.

Westcliffe appears to be experiencing regularly break-ins to cars and whatnot, so I'd be quite tempted by a house here if they're of good quality and whatnot.

Also, 100K for a modern house is pittance. If you can't afford a 100k mortgage, you shouldn't be looking at buying houses. Even a tiny 1 bed flat nowadays will set you back excess of £90-100k. You need to be looking at Help2Buy scheme, HomeBuy, etc.

Don't forget.. a percentage MUST be affordable. New, affordable housing is EXACTLY what Portland needs. The next generation have grown up, and guess what... we're fed up of RENTING and paying someone elses mortgage!

I'm all for it. :)
I'm saving for a mortgage currently and after living in Underhill, I wouldn't allow my worst enemy to so much as walk through fortuneswell in the light of day anymore, so I'd never consider a house there. Westcliffe appears to be experiencing regularly break-ins to cars and whatnot, so I'd be quite tempted by a house here if they're of good quality and whatnot. Also, 100K for a modern house is pittance. If you can't afford a 100k mortgage, you shouldn't be looking at buying houses. Even a tiny 1 bed flat nowadays will set you back excess of £90-100k. You need to be looking at Help2Buy scheme, HomeBuy, etc. Don't forget.. a percentage MUST be affordable. New, affordable housing is EXACTLY what Portland needs. The next generation have grown up, and guess what... we're fed up of RENTING and paying someone elses mortgage! I'm all for it. :) PortlandYoof
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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