Agenda and draft minutes

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on Friday 14^th March 2025.

The minutes of the previous meeting held on Friday 14^th March 2025 were confirmed and signed.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registrable or non-registrable interests as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct. In making their disclosure councillors are asked to state the agenda item, the nature of the interest and any action they propose to take as part of their declaration.

If required, further advice should be sought from the Monitoring Officer in advance of the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

Members of the public wishing to speak to the Committee on a planning application should notify the Democratic Services Officer listed on the front of this agenda. This must be done no later than two clear working days before the meeting. Please refer to the Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee.  Guide to Public Speaking at Planning Committee

The deadline for notifying a request to speak is 8.30am Thursday 27^th March 2025.

Representations by the public to the Committee on individual planning applications are detailed below. There were no questions, petitions or deputations received on other items on this occasion.

Installation of a Battery Energy Storage System of up to 49.9MW, associated infrastructure and enclosing compound, together with access and landscaping works.

The Case Officer presented a visual presentation, including plans and aerial photographs, to outline the site, site context, the proposal, representations, officer assessment and recommendation. The application had been previously deferred in January 2025 to allow officers time to liaise with the applicant for additional information. The update sheet was briefly discussed, and the site location, access roads, and nearby residential properties and emerging/approved developments were identified, along with details of the high-pressure gas pipeline and proposed soft landscaping also being discussed. Since January, the applicant had been asked about the possibility of forming an additional site access, but this was not feasible due to site constraints and land ownership. A response document and Smoke Plume Analysis Report was submitted by the applicant, and the application underwent a full public consultation, with targeted re-consultation of the fire service, police, highways, Chickerell Town Council and ward councillors.

The Case Officer referred to National Fire Chiefs Council guidance, noting that alternative access routes were intended for tactical fire responses, and based on the analysis, there was sufficient distance for fire crews to access the site. The Smoke Plume Analysis Report led to no objections from the Fire and Rescue Service, and the Highways Authority confirmed no safety issues. Dorset Police did not identify any terrorist threats associated with BESS developments. As a result, the Case Officer did not deem further conditions for safety measures necessary. Preventative measures for fire safety were reviewed, including safety designs such as fencing and cameras.

Following the deferral, officers were satisfied that a single access point was acceptable, with no objections from the Fire and Rescue Service. The significant benefits of the development were emphasised, including providing electricity to homes, contributing to tackling the climate emergency, decarbonising the electricity grid, working towards net zero and helping to deliver energy security. In line with the NPPF, the benefits carried significant weight. The Case Officer highlighted the updated conditions, including Condition 8 for a Battery Safety Management Plan and Condition 23 regarding the gas pipeline.

Public Participation

Dr. J Fannon spoke in objection to the proposal. He referred to the document submitted by the applicant in January and discussed the impact of smoke and toxic gases. He cited evidence from a BESS fire in Beijing, where temperatures exceeded the melting point of steel. He warned that a fire in a single container could spread further, and an explosion could cause additional damage. Dr Fannon criticised the applicant’s reliance on computer calculations, arguing that the outcomes from other BESS fires demonstrate the potential dangers. The public objector stressed that reliance on computer models alone was insufficient and noted that BESS developments did not bring significant economic benefits in terms of employment while imposing negative impacts on residential communities.

Ms Kelsall spoke in objection to the proposal. Initially, she was pleased upon seeing that the applicant had commissioned a plume study in response to previous concerns. However, after reviewing the study, the speaker expressed disappointment. Citing the Energy Research and Social  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

Proposed extraction of sand and gravel with associated access, internal haul roads, processing plant, silt and freshwater lagoons, stockpiles, conveyors, offices, weighbridge, and other ancillary infrastructure, creation of a new permissive path, and restoration with inert materials to agriculture, amenity and nature conservation.

The Case Officer presented a visual presentation with plans and aerial photographs to outline the site, proposal, and relevant planning policies. The site was cross-border, with less than 1% within Dorset, therefore, Hampshire County Council had agreed to consider the application. The county boundary and site location were shown, with the majority of the site in Hampshire, and Alderholt being the closest village. The applicant, CEMEX, operated a preexisting quarry and planned to extract 3.6 million tonnes of sand over approximately 13 years, followed by 5 years of restoration. All materials would have been transported by HGV, and the phasing plan, which included three phases was discussed. The access to the site was in Dorset, and the surrounding landscape provided noise attenuation. The distance from the site to Alderholt village was noted.

All minerals would be taken off-site via HGV, with 99% of vehicles turning onto Alderholt Road. Importation of inert waste would also occur via HGV from the south along Alderholt Road. Vehicle movements, both weekday and projected, were discussed, and a video was shown to demonstrate existing HGV routes. Environmental concerns regarding the footpaths were raised, as three footpaths will be diverted with new access, including a new permissive path along the western side of the route. The permissive path would be retained for the duration of operations. Environmental health concerns were highlighted but could have been addressed through conditions and liaison, with relevant policies such as SS1, DM1, DM2, DM8, and DM10 mentioned.

Dorset Council officers raised concerns regarding the transport assessment’s limitations, especially in relation to impacts on the Bakers Hanging junction, road width, and cumulative effects, as well as technical details such as a potential conveyor belt. They also suggested that, if permitted, the new permissive route should be retained post-operation. While environmental health issues were noted, conditions could resolve them. If the development proceeded, a S106 agreement could be needed to mitigate any residual harm.

It was recommended that Dorset Council writes to Hampshire County Council to object to the development, citing concerns while expressing a willingness to work with HCC, the applicant, and other stakeholders to achieve an appropriate and sustainable solution.

Public Participation

Ms Rowland referenced the noise survey, highlighting the potential adverse impacts on the quality of life for residents in the area. She noted the site's proximity to the River Avon, which held national importance, and expressed concern that insufficient attention had been given to the surrounding land and woodland areas. She pointed out that there would not have been any respite for residents, especially given the narrowness of the road, which she believed would be problematic for construction vehicles. The width of the road was identified as a significant factor, with no effective mitigation proposed. She raised concerns about the road being closed due to accidents or maintenance issues and criticized the lack of community engagement by the applicant. Ms Rowland emphasized the strong objection from the council.

Cllr Gina Logan spoke on behalf of Alderholt Parish Council. Cllr  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

To consider any items of business which the Chairman has had prior notification and considers to be urgent pursuant to section 100B (4) b) of the Local Government Act 1972. The reason for the urgency shall be recorded in the minutes.

There were no urgent items.

To move the exclusion of the press and the public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraph 3 of schedule 12 A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). The public and the press will be asked to leave the meeting whilst the item of business is considered.  

There are no exempt items scheduled for this meeting.  

There was no exempt business.