I WOULD like to comment on Peggy Bauwens letter (Echo, Feb 20) concerning WDDC’s approval of the Dorchester Prison Planning Application.

I am sure she is aware that WDDC is securing our 35 per cent affordable homes target on the vast majority of qualifying developments and clearly there is disappointment that affordable housing proved to be impossible to achieve on this particular site.

The planning system requires us to decide whether the submitted scheme is, for example, compliant with planning policy - we cannot usually consider alternatives.

I can confirm that WDDC did not rely solely upon the costs and calculations supplied by the applicant.

We engaged the district valuer to independently cost the submitted scheme.

Their conclusion was that the development would not be viable if affordable housing was included due, in part, to the complexity and high cost of converting the existing buildings.

Cllr Tim Yarker (Portfolio Holder for Housing) and myself received briefings by the district valuer during the investigation.

To refuse a planning application there must be at least one sound planning reason.

Since our own independent professional advice was that the scheme was not viable with affordable housing, the lack of it would not constitute a sound reason for refusal.

Certainly not a reason we would wish to defend at an appeal hearing given our own expert’s advice.

I believe the decision made by the Planning Committee accorded with National Planning Policy and it would be wrong to imply there was another easy option.

Where councils refuse planning applications without sound planning reasons applicants are entitled to an appeal, resulting in the risk of significant costs being borne by council tax payers.

CLLR IAN C GARDNER

Portfolio Holder Planning West Dorset District Council

Want to respond to this letter? Email letters@dorsetecho.co.uk or send them to Have Your Say, Dorset Echo, Hampshire Road, Weymouth, DT4 9XD