CONCERNS over footpaths and wildlife failed to halt a planning approval for 114 homes south of Louviers Road at Littlemoor.

One councillor said he was concerned that roads on the site would be transferred to a residents’ management company which would be responsible for their repair and maintenance.

Weymouth and Portland borough councillors approved the scheme in a near-unanimous vote today.

The Persimmon Homes scheme, on 4.7 hectares of farmland, is almost directly opposite Primula Close on the southern side of the Littlemoor estate.

The area is close to the Lorton Valley Nature Park and within 500 metres of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A financial contribution will be made to the management of the nature park as part of the consent.

A quarter of the proposed scheme, 40 homes, will be either ‘affordable’ homes for rent, or on a shared ownership basis. Twenty eight of these will be for rent, the others shared equity.

In total Persimmon want to build 50 two-bed houses, 51 one-bed, 4 four-bed, 6 one-bed flats, 4 two-bed flats, 1 two-bed bungalow and 2 three-bed bungalows. Only a small number of the homes will have garages and most of the properties will be two storey in brick and grey weatherboard.

The scheme allows for an area of open space to the south of the site and will have an access off Louviers Road. It will include a pond, up to 2.4 metres in depth, to help manage the drainage of surface water which will meet safety standards, including being fitted with a lifebuoy.

Borough councillors were told during a morning site visit on Wednesday that part of the site lies outside the area allocated for housing in the Local Plan but the developer says that area will largely remain open space, apart from ten houses. Officers overseeing he application raised no objection.

The sole objector to appear before councillors was Mr Malcolm Beeson who said he was worried about the loss of a ‘wildlife corridor’ – for creatures, including badgers and deer, which ‘commute’ between local areas where they live and forage.

He was also worried about possible disruption to the farm fields south of the site and what he said was the lack of sufficient parking within the development. He claimed that it had been reported that arsenic levels on the site were too high to allow home grown produce to be eaten – although this was refuted.

Councillors were told by planning officer Dave Oakhill that: “WPA Consultants have reviewed the information submitted with the application and consider that no significant risk of significant harm has been identified from soil contamination and/or groundwater/ground gas to the development site.”

Mr Beeson read a letter from another objector, Helga Jones, who said the fields were used every day by dog walkers, long distant walkers and mountain bikers. She said it would be upsetting to see the loss of so much open space to tarmac and concrete.

Cllr Ian Bruce said he worried about the decision for the roads not to be taken over by the county council – but managed by residents who would have to meet any maintenance costs and pay for any future problems.

The company say that the roads were not being ‘adopted’ by the council for technical reasons but would be built to adoptable standards and then put in the hands of a residents’ management company. Persimmon say similar agreements have taken place elsewhere, without problems.

Scheme planner, Dave Buczynskyg, said the site development was technically complicated because of the need to maintain access to the gas and water mains which cross the area. This is being achieved by putting these under the estate roads.

He said the access for farm vehicles will be maintained and another right of way also protected. He said the company had allowed, in its design, for other rights of way across the site although these have not been decided by Dorset County Council, despite having them since 2014.

Letters of objection included concerns about a lack of local infrastructure, the effect on nearby schools, gas and water pipes running through the site, the effect on wildlife and a claim that some of the houses will be above the skyline, contrary to planning guidelines.