Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Sherry Jespersen.

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 9^th December 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 9^th December 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 6^th February 2026.

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.

Retain use of land as a single Gypsy/Traveller pitch comprising; Retention of 1 No. building for use as Day Room, and siting of 1 No. mobile home and 1.No touring caravan, for residential occupation.

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. Photographs of site location, site history, site location plan, site day room, access shown into the site, the boundary of site, entrance into the yard, and entrance at top of Coles Lane. There was a lack of sites for gypsy and traveller households across the district, and regularising planning permission for sites that are temporary or unauthorised was an accepted route to provide sites. The location was sustainable and within walking distance of Yetminster facilities and services and provision of a permanent pitch would count toward Dorset’s number of pitches. The site resembled a small agricultural farmyard, and the buildings were modest in size, single storey, and existing screening provided by boundary trees and hedges. The fence was restricted to the site entrance, and the application was not out of character with similar agricultural characteristics. In respect of residential amenity there would be sufficient distance from neighbouring dwellings and the vehicle movements associated with 1 pitch had no adverse impact. The site was mapped outside flood risk areas, and the existing yard was permeable with no new buildings.

The landowner was willing to enter in a legal undertaking to ensure that waste collected was disposed of outside of any nutrient catchments. There was a cesspit on the site, and the waste disposal company could facilitate waste to Bristol or Trowbridge plants which were outside of the nutrient catchment area. There would be no disturbance to ecological habitats and the access was safe and the site was well screened.

Public Participation

Ruth Munns (Agent)

The agent highlighted the key issues and there had been no objections from the Council consultees, and the officer report found no conflict with planning policies. There was an identified undisputed high level relatively unmet need for gypsy and traveller pitches in Dorset. The provision of gypsy sites was key to reducing tensions between settled and traveller communities and reducing the inequalities these traveller communities faced. In her view, the site was incredibly well suited to be used as a gypsy, traveller pitch. When assessing the proposal against national policies of traveller sites and was clearly sustainably located. This policy did not prohibit traveller sites, outside of the settlement boundary and instead placed strict limits on development that was away from existing development. This emphasised the importance of providing a settled base from which to access services. The site was very close to Yetminster and access to services and public transport, where the primary school, shop and train station was within walking distance. The ecological impact of the proposal was minimal, and the site was naturally well screened by mature trees and hedgerows. The proposed sighting of the mobile home fitted well within the context of local development. There would be no additional hardstanding or operation development and just change of use was required. She addressed some of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

Carry our external alterations to barn and change of use to office - Use Class E (g) (i).

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. Photographs of application site and existing buildings shown, street scene and site history displayed.

Public Participation

Joules Baldock read out statement on behalf of hermitage and Hilfield Parish Hall Management Committee.

The rear of the structure in question was approximately 10 m in front of the village hall. The Committees objections to previous planning applications and the subsequent appeal relating to this structure had already been submitted online to Dorset Council. The appeal at D1265W243350867 following the refusal of Pful 202401720, only approved external alterations to take place. What was now being proposed was a rebuild, not a conversion. Resulting in a building of materially greater height, scale and permanence adjacent to the village hall. This would have a lasting and harmful impact on the setting and character of this important community facility. The planning officers view, of that permission would tidy the site, was not accepted. The committee was concerned that the proposed use of the building described as an office, was not supported by sufficient detail regarding its operation. Including hours of use, and the nature of activity that would take place. Given the close proximity to the village hall raises concerns about the potential impact on amenity and quiet enjoyment of this important community facility. Cllr Kippax had visited the site and recorded his objections. Which supported those of High Stoy Parish Council and local residents.

Joules Baldock

Spoke as a near neighbour, but also as someone who had followed the site’s planning history very closely and engaged constructively with the previous applications and appeal. This application had been referred to Committee and reflected the seriousness of the issues already identified by the Parish Council and by Members during the consultation process. She informed that this application was not a minor alteration and was an attempt to create a new building envelope that had already been ruled out. The Planning Inspector was very clear that the appeal allowed external alterations only. Class R provided a fallback position allowing change of use only. The Inspector expressly confined the permission to what was shown and assessed, and excluded extension, rebuilding, or modification of the building envelope. So, while the principle of use may have been accepted, the Inspector placed clear limits on what was permitted, and those limits explicitly excluded rebuilding or alteration of the building envelope. She stated that the application crossed the line. A full pitched roof, with increased height was not an external alteration but an operational development. Once the Class R boundary was crossed, that fallback position disappeared. Without the Class R fallback, the proposal must be judged as new development in a rural village located outside defined development boundaries — and the principle of a new dwelling on this plot had already been tested and refused in the past. More recent attempts to pursue new residential  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

Convert building into 1 No. dwelling (Remove roof, increase height of walls, erect new roof).

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. Photographs of existing building and existing plan, path that runs behind the building, proposed front and rear elevations. Upstairs two bedrooms, bathroom, and landing.

Public Participation

Caroline O’Toole.

She explained that the proposed two storey three-bedroom house would replace the stores/garages which abut my patio garden. The wall of the garage was also my garden wall boundary a shared wall, covered with sturdy trellis erected for security, and covered with mature climbers.

One of the fundamental inaccuracies in the most recent drawings 26 01 2026, by the developer described the kitchen extension of my home, Glenthorne House as a "lean-to” to be clear: it was not. It was a solid construction, a permanent and integral part of my living space, as far as I’m aware built at the same time as the house in 1893 (see photos).

By mischaracterizing my property, the developer had failed to accurately assess the impact on my "Right to Light." This proposed building was too large and too close; it would significantly overshadow my kitchen, stripping away the natural light from a room we use every day.

The proposal represented a clear case of overdevelopment. The massing of the building was simply too large for the footprint of the land leading to environmental harm that would be impossible to mitigate without resorting to a ‘credit scheme’. We would be looking at a significant loss of local flora and fauna/vegetation which provided a buffer for noise, and habitat for urban wildlife. You cannot replace established nature with bricks and mortar and claim there was no ecological cost.

Regarding infrastructure: the parking situation in this area was already at a breaking point. Many of her neighbours on Bristol Road had also objected and expressed concern. This was a busy road with heavy traffic throughout the day; from 25 plus school coaches and large heavy farm vehicles.  Adding further residential units with insufficient parking provision was a recipe for gridlock and, more importantly, a risk to the safety of the students, pedestrians and local residents. The plan for a single small garage was unlikely to accommodate comfortably a modern family car, electric charging point and reversing in and out would be dangerous. This would put further demands on road parking; note there was only limited parking on the east side of the road.  It should also be noted Quarr Drive at the back had reached saturation point regarding parking. If planning went ahead there would be huge disruption, exacerbated by the (lengthy)delivery of materials, storage space and the provision of welfare facilities. Where? On council maintained green space? 

The footpath from Bristol Road to Quarr Drive and the Nature Reserve would undoubtedly be compromised, quite possibly blocked with scaffolding etc and likely damaged, preventing safe, public access, to and from the Quarr nature reserve. Many local residents with restricted mobility  ...  view the full minutes text for item 113.

Erect two-storey front and side extensions, raise ridge height and erect porch.

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. Photographs of site location, site plans, existing elevations, existing floor and roof plans, and existing and proposed roof height. Flood risk and drainage, biodiversity plan prepared for the site and bat activity was found in the roof. The application had approval from Natural England and there was no bird nest activity identified in the area. The principle of the development was judged as acceptable and not considered to cause harm to the character and the appearance of the area. There was no demonstrable harm to neighbour amenity and no harm to the landscape or scenic beauty and no increased flood risk. Biodiversity would be protected throughout the development, with mitigation secured.

Public Participation

No Public Participation.

Members questions and comments

• Questions were asked regarding the access around building and does the developing design codes for Dorset cover flint and brick?
• A comment was made that the design out of character for a rural setting, and it was a big property in a restricted site, and looked like overdevelopment, it was the wrong house in a rural setting.
• A comment was made about roof lights being harmful to dark skies.
• A question was asked about bat activity and whether there would be bird boxes.
• Comments were made that the site was in a great location with lots of space around it and it was a quality application. 

Hannah Smith responded that there would be a limited number of roof lights and this would not be detrimental to the national landscape. 

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 Fry, and seconded by Cllr Jones.

Decision: To grant planning permission with conditions set out in the officer’s report and outlined in the appendix of the minutes.

Additional Condition was added Prior to first use of the development; 1 no. swift box shall be installed on the site and thereafter retained.

Reason: To provide biodiversity gains.

Form opening in rear garden wall to install access gate.

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. Photographs of site location, in site settlement boundary, aerial image, illustrated small portion of Dorset Council owned land, images of existing site, existing and proposed floorplans shown. There would be no harm to conservation area and no impact on heritage assets. The principle of the development was deemed acceptable, and the proposal was not considered to cause harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area or the Grade 2 listed building and their settings. There were highway safety concerns and would be no impact on residential amenity.

Public Participation

No Public Participation.

Members questions and comments

• Comments were made that it was a good 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 Les Fry, and seconded by Cllr David Taylor.

Decision: To grant planning permission with conditions set out in the officer’s report and outlined in the appendix of the minutes.

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.