HOWLS of protest greeted every councillor who spoke in favour of the Weymouth Pavilion redevelopment at a management committee meeting.
There was so much heckling from the 100-strong audience at the Pavilion Theatre yesterday that it prompted committee chairman Coun Mike Goodman to state: "We may be on a stage, but this is not a pantomime."
Despite the disapproval from the stalls, councillors voted in favour of the new development brief for the site and accompanying environmental assessment - but only just.
Councillors at the Weymouth and Portland Borough Council management committee came out 5-4 in favour with one abstention.
They also voted 9-1 in favour of taking into account consultation responses in pre-application discussions.
The new brief which has caused so much controversy will see the main building increased from six to eight storeys and a marina boosted to 290 berths.
It is argued only this form of development is economically viable.
While many who spoke against said they felt something should be done with the site, they questioned the scale of the proposed development.
Among those addressing the committee was David Beaman representing the Weymouth and Portland Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Tourism, who said the planning brief approved by councillors last year which envisaged a smaller development should not be exceeded.
Anything more would be an eyesore' and the council should draw a line in the sand', Mr Beaman insisted.
Paul Barrow received a round of applause when he said the council and developer Howard Holdings had made an unholy alliance' and were pushing ahead without listening to public opinion.
He warned Weymouth should not be stampeded' into a decision because of the 2012 Olympics.
Sue Sidell received louder cheers when she described a private meeting between councillors and Howard Holdings the day before the meeting as the developer's timeshare pitch'.
She questioned the commercial viability of a larger building and marina when the council hadadmitted the harbour was in decline.
"On one side of the coin you have your integrity, decency and common sense to help you decide what's best for the town and on the flip side you have the tarnished vision of Howard Holdings," she told councillors.
Chamber of commerce former president Andy Cooke spoke in favour of Howard Holdings revised scheme and said the chamber's objection to the new brief had been approved at a meeting only attended by 10 members.
He said: "This development will enhance the borough and act as a catalyst to attract job opportunities. Future generations will be proud."
Darren Deadman, of the Weymouth Beach Group, said the development would regenerate, rejuvenate and add value, so we can keep up with the competition'.
He added: "With the right commitment there is an opportunity to create a landmark and a legacy for the future."
Councillors voting in favour of the first part of the recommendation were Peter Chapman, Mike Goodman, Doug Hollings, Geoff Petherick and Jean Woodward. Against were Christine James, Howard Legg, Tim Munro and Brendan Webster. Anne Kenwood abstained.
Coun Legg admitted the present site was an eyesore' but is concerned about the visual effect an enlarged marina would have on the seafront.
Coun Munro believed there should be further investigations into the ferry terminal being included in the plan.
He said: "We need commitment from a commercial operator before we spend public money on managing their business."
Coun Webster spoke of his concern about views from the seafront being affected and why the council had to change its mind on a decision made a year ago.
There were cheers from the audience as Coun Hollings warned of Howard Holdings walking away' if the plan was not supported.
He was jeered as he spoke of the possibility of enjoying tremendous new vistas' in the larger development.
Coun Hollings said: "We will have missed a great opportunity if we leave the site undeveloped.
"This is a great opportunity to increase the prosperity of the area and to make Weymouth a premier seaside resort."
Coun Chapman said the Pavilion scheme was not on the minds of residents when he canvassed on doorsteps earlier this year.
He added: "This is a huge economic boom to the town. We can't preserve the town in aspic because it will eventually die."
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