Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Cllr David Taylor.

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.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 27^th May 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 27^th May 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 4^th July 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.

Demolition of existing garage block and redevelopment with two dwellings including landscaping and associated works.

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 was to demolish a block of 48 garages, 37 which were currently occupied. The garages were mostly used for storage, and it was estimated that 5 garages were used for cars. The site would be redeveloped with two dwellings including landscaping and associated works. Each parking space would have electric charging stations. The Highway Authority was satisfied with road safety and parking.

Public Participation

Cllr Jon Andrews spoke as a member of the public and not as a Councillor.

He had been a resident of Wingfield Road between 1969 to 1975 and remembered playing football around there, but this morning a fire engine would not have been able to get around from the Richmond Road junction along Wingfield Road due to the number of parked vehicles[LA1] . He informed that Wingfield Road has 72 houses in total, and not one parking space was available in Wingfield Road which is a hazard to public safety. The houses were a very nice design but just in the wrong place. There was one car parked and this morning 4 vans. He asked the Committee to not accept the application, as the sheltered accommodation needed emergency vehicle access, which would not have been able to get there this morning, without damaging and moving vehicles due to parked vehicles. The garages were for people who were self-employed, and demolishing these garages would mean that these people would have to find other garages which there is none available in Sherborne.

Ms Lindridge explained that she was a resident of half acres, and many residents were elderly and disabled and her living room and bedroom was 7 foot away from the garages. There would be a loss of privacy, dust upheaval and traffic disruption and essential services would be at risk. She wanted a peaceful life and did not want the hassle that the demolition would bring.

Ms Day informed that amenities, fire services, ambulances came in most days, and supermarket vans needed to get in and out and residents rely on taxies and cars to take them into town, and they were unable to park in their own parking spaces as lots of car park on Wingfield Road. She stated that the Council should consider the implications on behalf of the residents, and there was 7 feet between the garages and herself. Some residents have crutches, wheelchairs, mobility scooters, and need those pavements to use and not cars parked on them as for drop down curves people park on them and ambulances and fire services would not be able to get in.

Andrew Tregray (the Agent for the application) explained that the application was to create two new dwellings in a highly sustainable location, a short distance from the town centre and no doubt a suitable location for two dwellings. There had been no technical  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

Erect first floor extension to provide 1 No. unit of residential accommodation.

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 was to erect a first-floor extension to provide 1 No. unit of residential accommodation. The roof was designed to protect the amenity of the window. There would be no direct overlooking, and the second room was intended to be office store, rather than a bedroom. The application was in a town centre location, with a variety of buildings. The roof was designed so that light could reach the window and there would be no blocking of the window and light of the window would not be significantly impacted as it was East facing.

Public Participation

Mr Kendle lived at 5 Icen Mews, the back-wall of the proposed development was the back-wall of his courtyard garden, and this wall was less than 12 metres from the living room of his house. He explained the overbearing nature of the proposal, and he referenced that the officers report stated that the development would not be overbearing due to the courtyard already experiencing an enclosed character and the development only amounted to an additional 60cm of height of the party-wall. He explained that the officers report underplayed the effect of the development. The boundary wall at the end of his garden was already the tallest structure enclosing the space, and crucially, it was the only boundary visible directly from his living room. This made it the most prominent feature from both inside his home and garden.

The proposal sought to significantly increase the height of that wall, with a sloping roof rising further behind it. That change significantly worsened the sense of enclosure and visual dominance of the structure, contrary to the protections offered by Policy 25 of the North Dorset Local Plan, which required development to safeguard the amenity of existing residents, including protection from overbearing structures and loss of outlook. This development only represents an additional 60cms of height.

The officer’s report included that the proposal would only amount to a roughly 60cm increase in height, or a 14% increase in the height of the current party-wall. He informed that this claim was inaccurate and disingenuous for two reasons: The report stated the additional height of the party-wall is 60cms but the sloping roof, rises above the party-wall by a further 140cms and that the highest point was 100cms back from the party-wall. A 200cm increase was significantly higher than a 60cm one that the report drew your attention to.

The architectural drawings on which the 60cm figure was based were inaccurate because they: Stipulated that the floor-space between the current ground-floor and the new first-floor was 14cms when at a minimum, taking into account joists and fire-protection, it would need to be at least 29cms. The drawings also indicated that the current parapet wall is 429cms high, but he measured it, and it was only 402cms at its highest point and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Erect first floor extension to provide 1 No. unit of residential accommodation.

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. This application was to consider the listed building consent and looking at the impact only on heritage assets and the historic fabric of the building.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Jespersen commented that she did not see any reason for why this application should be refused listed building consent as the Conservation Officers were keen on the improvements this development would bring. 

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 representations; 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 Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Rideout.

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

Demolish store and erect a two Bay Garage / Workshop.

Cllr Vitali left the meeting at 12:33 and gave his apologies.

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 was to demolish store and erect a two Bay Garage/Workshop. Photographs of the map showed the location,  in an AONB. The site access, tree protection plan and the full extent of vegetation along northern boundary were presented to the Committee.

Public Participation

No public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Brenton asked if there was rainwater collection on the building and she appreciated the solar panels on the roof and suspended floor. 
• Cllr Rideout asked about the back access and whether there were bat boxes.
• Cllr Fry asked about a water retention condition and some form of water storage on the site.

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 Brenton, and seconded by Cllr Rideout.

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

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.

There are no exempt items scheduled for this meeting.  

There was no exempt business.