THE concept of an "enabling" development alongside the Nunnery Way stadium has long since been approved by city council planning officers.

Their acceptance of the principle, indeed, has been underlined by talks about what that enabling development might involve - houses, hotels, or employment through factories.

But the money required to support a development that meets Football League requirements was such that none of those preferred uses was viable.

It left us needing to find a financial partner whose product would support a new stadium - which is how the project turned to B&Q.

But the planners objected to B&Q, because they didn't consider the site suitable for such a store. It left us with a dilemma. Worcester City Football Club wanted a new stadium. So did its supporters. And so did the council, which had allocated the site for a stadium in two Local Plans. But how should it be financed?

The only avenue available to the football club was B&Q. But that was in conflict with the planning officers, who preferred such a store to go somewhere else, perhaps at Tolladine.

B&Q, however, doesn't want to go to Tolladine.

That's when public and media pressure began to grow. Several thousands petitioners, supporting the B&Q project, prompted Worcester City Council to respond.

They had to find a way to meet the need of their policy for a stadium with the WCFC finance provided by a retail store, and ensure that other planning policies - including design, layout, materials, traffic, noise, lighting, environment and cost - met their expectations for the site.

Their planning legal eagles responded with CLT30, a policy drafted in consultation with their professional advisers, including their independent planning barrister, for inclusion in the Local Plan.

It was created, in effect, as a blank piece of paper. No preconceptions for shape and size and configuration of either the stadium or the store. It was accepted by WCFC and presented to the planning inspector at last year's Local Plan public inquiry.

The inspector - also a planning officer - agreed with the council's planning officer, who agreed with Wychavon District Council's planning officer. They were against putting a B&Q at Nunnery Way.

They say it should go somewhere else, in accordance with their preference. But, if it does, there'll be no benefit to the local community through sponsoring a sports stadium complex.

As each planning officer has conceded in the public inquiry, the matter's ultimately a matter for the city councillors. Planning officers advise, councillors decide.

Councillors know the inspector endorses the objection from their own planning officer. It which leaves them having to resolve whether or not to retain their determination to create CLT30, or to abandon CLT30 - and, therefore, abandon the cause of WCFC and its need for the associated retail enabling development.

Since the inquiry, an extraordinarily large office structure has grown close to the nearby County Hall site.

What's more, the Berkeley family - of Spetchley Estates, who were objectors to the B&Q plan - is seeking council support from the Local Plan for 30 acres of factory sheds on the other side of Nunnery Way.

It means Worcester is moving eastwards towards the motorway, with the Nunnery Way site becoming surrounded by the Cattle Market and the motorway and the new office block, and the prospect of new industrial sheds to come. All within the city boundary.

There will have to be some development between the stadium site and the Cattle Market one day. There may be no stadium at all - but there'll still be some development.

The probability is that, without a stadium, it will either be a big office block - like the one by County Hall - or another 20 acres of employment land and factory sheds, like those Spetchley Estates wants.

The whole concept of where a B&Q superstore should be in Worcester is linked to the retailer's determination to come to the city, as it has done to towns like Kidderminster and Evesham.

The DIY market is, in effect, a leisure industry. It provides for consumers to participate in their particular hobby.

There's synergy between a store that's providing leisure and entertainment for its consumers, and a stadium that does the same for its spectators.

Other councils and other planning officers have co-operated to ensure that there's a balance of interests between preferred planning policies and actual proposed project developments.

Only in Worcester, it seems, has the matter come to such a conflict that the planning officer refuses to moderate his position for the overall benefit of the city and the football club - even though CLT30's entirely in accordance with a policy and a precedent established by the Minister of Planning.

Our councillors, therefore, now have to decide whether they're prepared to overrule that officer, and to take a bold step to give WCFC the chance to show that it can propose - in a formal planning application - a project that will enhance the city's image on this landmark site and provide the best facilities it can achieve for soccer.

Worcester's a sporting city with its County Cricket Ground, the rowing club, the rugby club, which is now of premiership status, and the Pitchcroft racecourse.

By comparison, home for Worcester City FC's an outdated stadium in the middle of a suburb and a site completely unsuitable for continuation and promotion and expansion as a stadium.

The councillors should be prepared to vote for the club as part of their policy to continue to support WCFC and to retain CLT30.

They have the responsibility and the right to determine what development takes place in Worcester and, having listened to the arguments for and against, they should resolve again that the balance of interests lies with the WCFC project.

This doesn't mean, of course, that any project is approved - rather that WCFC should have the opportunity to present a formal application with full justification for the shape and size, and all the other various required details, including assessments of traffic, sewerage, noise, light and environment.

If the council chooses to reject the plea of WCFC, and reverse their previous resolution under CLT30, the councillors will be sending a very clear message that they don't care for WCFC's fate.

This is a matter for the people Worcester and should be decided by their representatives. CLT30 should continue as part of council policy.