Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs James Vitali.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registerable or non-registerable 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.

Cllr Jack Jeanes made a declaration to agenda item 5, it was agreed that he would not take part in the debate or vote, nor would he speak as the Local Member. He agreed to withdraw himself from the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th February 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 4^th February 2025 were confirmed and signed.

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 on Friday 14^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.

Erection of 6 No. dwellings, form new vehicular access and parking.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The biodiversity plan was approved by the natural environment team and conditioned accordingly. The buildings would not overlook neighbours, and the site had been reviewed by the flood authority. The site was acceptable in terms of highway safety and 2 of the properties would be affordable and first homes. The site was within the settlement boundary and the proposal was appropriately designed and laid out.

Public Participation

Mr Eastmond of R & S Consultants addressed the Committee. The site lied within the settlement boundary as defined by local planning policies, these being Policy 2 of the North Dorset Local Plan and Policy SB of the Pimperne Neighbourhood Plan. The proposals are therefore supported in principle, subject to accordance with the other relevant local policies.

Whilst the Council has a ‘fixed’ housing land supply of 5.02-years until 31 October 2025, the recent changes to the NPPF including the updated standard method for calculating local housing need mean that by November 2025 it is likely the Council will no longer have a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites. The annual local housing need has increased from 1,793 homes to 3,219, meaning 16,095 homes will need to be delivered across a five-year period. The latest information on the supply of housing shows there is currently a 5-year deliverable supply of 8,999 homes, which means there will be a significant shortfall even before the 5% NPPF buffer is factored in.

He underlined that it was imperative that the Council identified suitable, sustainably located sites for development. Developments that accord with the development plan should be supported now, to ensure that by the time the housing land supply protections are removed, the Council has helped deliver enough suitable sites to ensure that more sensitive areas are protected.

He confirmed that the Lead Local Flood Authority, the Tree Officer, Environmental Health, and the Highway Authority all offer no objection to the proposed scheme.

The Case Officer, as set out in her detailed report, did not concur with the objections of the Parish Council and the National landscapes team. She concludes that the scheme would have an acceptable impact on both the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the National Landscape.

He summarised that the housing development on the site was supported by both the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. There was a significant national and local need for new homes, and the development would help to ensure the Council continues to have a 5-year housing land supply and the site was suitably and sustainably located within Pimperne and the case officer and the majority of technical consultees consider the effects of the scheme would be acceptable. 

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Jespersen commented that she could not support the application on the grounds of Principal Development and needed to defend Pimperne’s Neighbourhood Plan. 150 new homes  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Install dropped kerb & form vehicular access.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The site is a sustainable location, there was no significant impact on neighbouring amenities, highway addressed issues and these have been resolved. There would be no adverse impact on setting of listed bridge.

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Major commented that highways were happy and that this was a straightforward application.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Major, and seconded by Cllr Taylor.

Decision: To grant planning permission for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Change of use & conversion of The Maltings to create flexible commercial (Use Class E)/community (Use Class F2)) uses & parking purposes at basement floor & for residential (Use Class C3) at ground to second floors; with external alterations, extension to existing basement & erection of side extensions up to five storeys (to provide a total of 43 flats). Erection of five-storey building (Malting Mews) with parking at ground floor & residential use (Use Class C3) at first to fourth floors (33 flats).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The site is located in conservation area to the south of Dorchester town centre on the wider brewery square development. The development would be retaining and reusing historically important buildings. With Mix use development. Officers had reviewed the scheme and were happy that it applied with highways requirements and the landscaping of the site was considered to be acceptable. The committee was updated regarding the changes to the description of the development on the first page of the report. The description had changed from the erection from five to four storey building and residential use (Use Class C3) at first to fourth floors (33 flats) to (27 flats).

Public Participation

Ms Snow an employee of Dorset Council, represented herself and neighbours and addressed the Committee. Her family lived on Prince of Wales Road since 2022 and she knew when she bought the house that consent had been granted for 11 town houses behind our property and had no objection to this. But since then, numerous applications had been made for a large block of flats instead.

This block would be just 50cm away from the garden wall at 6 Prince of Wales Rd and more than 20m high, stealing our daylight and directly overlooking our gardens and homes. Its scale, mass and proximity feel overwhelmingly dominant and will deprive us of light and privacy. The consented town house scheme had underground parking, built at a lower level and would be far less imposing.

She referenced the original Weymouth Avenue Development Brief states, with regard to Prince of Wales Road, that.

“Consideration must be made to the impact of any proposed redevelopment upon these properties, with the aim being to ensure that no significant harm is caused to the amenities of the occupiers.”

She informed that the proposal would significantly harm the residents of Prince of Wales Road through deprivation of privacy and other simple freedoms. 

Dorchester’s Civic Society, The Victorian Society, the Town Council and Dorset Council’s own Urban Designer agree that a building of this scale, mass and proximity is unacceptable and is not reflective of ‘mews style’. She explained that this also contradicted the Weymouth Avenue Brief which states:

“… plots and positioning, scale and massing, and design and materials used in development need to respect the Listed Buildings, Conservation Area and their settings”.

She showed the market demand for flats vs houses in a mile of DT1 is unbalanced. Today there are 132 flats for sale on Rightmove in DT1 (not including Poundbury) but only 33 terraced or semi-detached 3 plus bedroom houses with gardens and parking.

The recently completed adjacent block of flats which impacts numbers 16 – 20 Prince of Wales Road is 15m away from the garden wall. The impact to them is significant (see pic below) but the Maltings Mews will be even higher and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Alteration & conversion of The Maltings to create flexible commercial (Use Class E)/community (Use Class F2)) uses & parking purposes at basement floor & for residential (Use Class C3) at ground to second floors; with external alterations, extension to existing basement & erection of side extensions up to five storeys, to provide a total of 43 flats.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members.

No public participation.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Pothecary, and seconded by Cllr Taylor.

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report.

Demolition of existing buildings & erection of 20no. dwellings, including access, parking & landscaping. (With variation of condition 2 of planning permission P/FUL/2021/05768 to amend approved plans).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The National landscape impact was deemed to have an acceptable impact. Layout was still acceptable and biodiversity still acceptable. It would be viable to secure 5% of affordable housing equivalent to 1 unit. There were no significant adverse effects. 

Public Participation

Mr Hiscock addressed the Committee. The informed that the nearby Frogmore development of 7 bungalows has been discussed as a committee. In contrast, this development of 20 houses was delegated, despite 10 objections, affecting 13 existing homes, 29 consultees, ongoing concerns from neighbours and a Development approximately 3 times the size.

He asked why, was this delegated to a single case officer, despite the strong and continued opposition & significance of the development?

Plots 1-8 look directly into our private garden and windows. Privacy and amenity have been lost by this development, in its current format.

Alternative, smaller housing styles were needed, preferably bungalows. This has already been changed and approved for the nearby Frogmore development. Policy HE2 - Bungalows are far more in keeping with the local housing mix of almost exclusively bungalows and could provide the required privacy and amenity.

The SUDS water basin seems to justify the location of plots 1-4, with no regard for the amenity and privacy of our home.

If this location was fixed, plots 1-4 should be redesigned / relocated to afford our property the privacy and amenity required.

Over the 3+ years of this application, the development had undergone many significant changes, including housing styles, quantities and a change of architect. Revised plans and the officer’s reports state that all plots have moved both levels and locations.

He explained that this completely undermined the original grant of permission upon which all original consultees based their professional judgments on. He add that you could not pass something and then simply move the goal posts!

With regards to affordable housing, the case officer’s own words include “the proposed housing mix would not comply with estimated SHMA figures”

Policy DES11 - All new development should add to and enhance the AONB. The addition of 20, 2 storey houses and the proposal of wooden fence boundaries does Neither.

A native hedge around the property had been planted, that would take years to fully establish and provide privacy.

To meet Policy DES6 – he proposed that the developer does the same, along our 2 boundaries.

Other plots on site have had conditions imposed, such as obscured glass and fixed windows, yet, no such conditions have been imposed that help protect our amenity.

Mr Annen addressed the Committee.  He explained that he was a Chartered Town Planner and Director of Pure Town Planning and was speaking in support of the proposal on behalf of the applicant; Stanborough Construction.

He commended the quality of the planning officer’s report and thanked Mr McDonald for the professional way he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Erect 130 No. dwellings, form public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). (Reserved matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale; following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. APP/D1265/W/21/3284485 (LPA Ref.2/2019/1799/OUT).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. There would be 52 affordable units, of which 40% policy compliant, 36 affordable rents, in which would be spread out throughout most of the parcels. Layout and design considered acceptable, landscaping, acceptable, layout and design acceptable.

Public Participation

Ms Black an Associate Planner at SLR Consulting supporting the applicant addressed the Committee. The application was a Reserved Matters submission, meaning the principle of the development and the access had already been established and so this submission was only seeking the approval of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The development comprises 130 new homes, open space and landscaping.

She was pleased that the proposed development had been recommended for approval by your Officers, alongside the Consultees, to prepare this detailed Reserved Matters scheme that, which if approved, would enable the delivery of well-designed and much needed new housing.

A variety of building materials had been carefully chosen to reflect the character of the local area, including the use of slate grey and cottage red roof tiles, brick and render on the elevations as well as brick quoins and diamond detailing.

A variety of tree, shrub and hedgerow planting was proposed throughout the site, including along the streets to soften and create an attractive new development. Additional trees were added in response to Consultee comments and root cells have been incorporated to ensure trees can grow successfully within hard landscaped areas for the long-term.

She covered the benefits that the development would have for the local area, including:

• Much needed housing, including a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bed homes;
• 52 affordable homes, which equates to 40% of the overall development and is therefore policy compliant;
• Provision of a link to the existing trailway footpath to the west of the site, to enable a more direct pedestrian route to the town centre;
• Public open space and landscaping throughout the site and an equipped play area;
• Economic benefits both through employment during the construction phase and long-term local spending by future residents supporting shops and services; and CIL and S106 contributions, including financial contributions towards: community, leisure and indoor sports facilities, education, local healthcare, libraries and biodiversity and local nature reserve mitigation and maintenance.

Cllr Wardell addressed the Committee on behalf of the Stalbridge Town Council. He acknowledged that the Council’s initial concerns had been accommodated but there were three principal concerns relating to the reserve matters. Firstly, under the issue of principal development having been established up to 130 dwellings and questioned why there was an automatic assumption that the maximum number could be accommodated within the site without any consideration to have fewer dwellings. 130 dwellings give the figure of 23 dwellings a hectare more dense than necessary in this location in Stalbridge and more than that of the ongoing David Wilson development in Lower Road which is 20.5 dph. Opening up  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Removal of redundant projecting glazed shop front to south elevation and replacement with flush traditional casement style window with associated stonework. 

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The application had come to the committee in 2023 for change of use. The occupants wished to remove the projecting shop front and replace with a matching window. The Committee went through the history of the shop and saw historical photos. The building was not a listed building but was in a conservation area.

Public Participation

Mr Roach addressed the Committee. He explained that this was now their second Northern Area planning committee meeting with regard to Old Post Office House.  In May 2023, Northern Area planning committee granted our change of use application from Mixed Use to solely Residential,

Since that change we have continued to maintain and restore this building. We are its custodians and have a huge responsibly to take care of the property and preserve it. Our application demonstrates our dedication to OLD POST OFFICE HOUSE and commitment to the conservation area.

Objectors have made the following three misleading comments,

UPVC window would not be in keeping with the Conservation area - There is NO mention of UPVC windows in our application

Removal of the Postbox -  Our plans clearly show the retention of the Post Box, it is of historical importance and it will remain within the fabric of our property

Works have started on the Frontage  -  NO works have commenced on the frontage of our home.

Objectors also state:

Loss of Shop Frontage destroys reference to the building being a Former Post Office

The 2019 Bradford Abbas History and Heritage information board, located just 18 mtrs from our house, does NOT include ANY reference to the OLD POST OFFICE HOUSE 

However, we have established a reference to the historical past of our home by the retention of the George V Post box and our home is called “Old Post Office House” The former use and association of our home within the village is clearly maintained.

Our application provides for the sympathetic restoration of the original Post office frontage, with a Flush Fitting Timber Window to match the adjacent window in style.  The removal of the modern frontage would provide considerable energy savings and have a positive impact on the Conservation area.

The OLD POST OFFICE HOUSE is a residential dwelling with a redundant modern shop frontage, which is NOT in keeping with the Conservation Area

Our restoration will greatly enhance and improve the appearance of the Conservation area

Cllr Legg addressed the Committee and was not arguing whether this property is or becomes a private residence as this matter was settled in 2023. There was an initial concern because the originally plan submitted did not show the retention of the post box which is a George V 1934 post box and there was concern that the removal of that would damage the historical reference to this building formerly being a post office and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

Erect 1 No. dwelling and create new vehicular access from The Avenue.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. The site was in a sustainable location, within the development boundary of Sherborne, 300 metres from cheap street and local facilities within 800 metres of walking distance and town centre. Highly sustainable for new dwelling and smaller sites were needed to meet housing requirements. There would be less than substantial harm which was outweighed by public benefits and a formation of safe vehicle access as the previous access was seen as unsafe. There would be less than substantial harm to the conservation area, design was appropriate for conservation area. The proposal was on an empty site featuring a lawn which could be seen as under-utilised land, and the dwelling sits comfortably within the plot and does not impact on transport network. The Flood risk of the site was high and medium risk of surface water flooding, but the site was outside of the flood zones. The proposal was on an urban site covered by maintained lawn, which had no significant biodiversity value.

Public Participation

Ms Rawlings addressed the Committee that this was not simply about getting planning permission but about what matters - heritage. The NPPF says that great weight should be given to safeguarding heritage assets considering them an irreplaceable resource that should be protected for future generations. Their preservation is for national benefit. The benefit of housing needed to be balanced against any harm. For a listed building the consideration of harm is much higher so there needs to be a much bigger public benefit. Here we are talking about an amazing 12-foot stone wall that is much enjoyed by so many in the town. A popular route to schools and to the doctors and another can never be built as it would cost too much. It forms the boundary of a medieval burial plot which outlines the historic evolution of Sherborne. Building there will erode the character and value of our wall. The poor decisions much higher up the wall on a lower section do not set the benchmarks for the wall. She underlined the importance of historical buildings and that any harm much have convincing justification. One house worth more than 1 million pounds has very little public benefit and not sufficient to outweigh the harm. The proposed design intrudes on the listed buildings settings of 91 and 93 as it impacts how they are seen from the road, the garden and the building themselves. If this is allowed, it sends a message that heritage does not matter.

Mr Marr strongly objected to this application. The applicant claimed that this development “will better enhance the character of the conservation area”. In his view this was not true as the site is surrounded by listed buildings in which the character is defined by the gardens, mature trees and local wildlife. A new building in this location would significantly diminish  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

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 x 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.