A DEVELOPER'S request to make a "significant" number of changes to plans for a controversial new housing estate in Weymouth has been thrown out by Dorset Council.
Planning permission for a nine home scheme at land to the north of Lorton Lane was granted on appeal in January. It had originally been rejected by Dorset Council in June last year after campaigners argued that an important local landscape gap would be lost if the homes were agreed.
The application is for nine detached and semi-detached two storey homes with garaging, parking spaces and road access to the site on land west of the Old Rectory.
It was made by developer Malcolm Curtis of Koori Ltd and will see homes built on a horse paddock at the junction of Dorchester Road and Lorton Lane, between Redlands and Broadwey.
- Read more: Strong objections over nine home plan on ‘wildlife corridor’
- Nine homes approved for Lorton Lane, Weymouth
Having won the appeal an umbrella company Redtale Holdings submitted a request on the developer's behalf for a raft of changes - including to roof heights, chimney heights and layouts.
However, this week Dorset Council ruled that the "significant" number of changes could be "harmful" to future occupiers of the homes and affect the character of the development.
Other concerns were that plans for a new boundary wall close to existing homes would have a negative impact on neighbours, and that changes to the hard and soft landscaping would adversely affect the character of the original proposal. Concerns were also raised over a pedestrian pathway leading onto Dorchester Road being removed from the original plans.
The council's Planning officer's report highlights that the proposals could result in the development being in breach of previously-agreed planning conditions for the site due to surface water, drainage and landscaping being affected. It also said that plans for changing a garage would constitute a non-material increase.
The council also disagreed with Redtale Holdings' claims that the proposed changes were 'non-material' (ie, considered to be minor and do not significantly change the planning permission) and said the developer must submit a new request for a variation of the planning permission.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article