Trevor Bevins, Local Democracy Reporter.
Changes to a Weymouth town centre building to create bedrooms for young people leaving care has been refused – because of the risk of flooding.
A private social work company had requested changes to the upper floors of its offices at 52 St Mary Street for those aged 18 to 25 – the existing building described as “an education and social welfare facility”.
The site is to the southern end of St Marys Street between St Edmunds Street and Custom House Quay, surrounded mainly by commercial buildings.
One of the classrooms there would have been divided to create two bedrooms, the other two by converting other rooms.
The planning application came from the Whitehead-Ross Social Work which works for a number of local authorities, including Dorset.
It said there would be no changes to the exterior of the building but internal changes would be made to create four bedrooms, a kitchen area and shower – with the second floor already used as an Air B&B flat with its own separate entrance.
Planning officers rejected the proposal saying it would be unsafe to add more accommodation in a town centre location likely to flood, the report stating: “the lack of uncompromised routes to provide access and/or escape during a flood event would place future occupants at greater and unnecessary risk from flooding and its consequences.”
Similar town centre housing plans in recent years have been rejected on the same grounds.
In its response to the application the Environment Agency said that because the building was in an area where there is a high risk of flooding Dorset Council needed to consider safe access to and from the building in the event of a flood.
The Agency said that it was satisfied that the accommodation proposed on the upper floors would be above any likely flooding.
The Dorset Council report argued that despite the lack of objection from the Agency its own officers contended that the risks to any future occupiers would be increased because they might be asleep when any flood alert was sent and that no account had been taken of the medical condition of those needing to evacuate the building – all of which might put additional pressure on emergency services.
“Given flooding on adjacent roads, the flood warning service cannot be solely relied on and safe access and escape routes not affected by severe flooding have not been identified. This places future residents at unacceptable risk should they require emergency assistance in the event of a flood,” said the council report.
Planning reference – P/FUL/2026/03389
