Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Les Fry, Cllr Vitali, Cllr Major, Cllr Woode and Cllr Ridout.

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 10^th February 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 10 February 2026 were confirmed and signed.

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.

Erect 78 No. dwellings, form vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, open space and drainage attenuation.

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 the site context, heritage assets, flood risks, landscape setting, proposed development site plan were shown. The location of the development was beyond the settlement boundary of Okeford Fitzpaine. The development was a 10-minute walk to facilities such as the village shop and post office. The application was regarded as sustainable village growth and an opportunity to enhance the village. There would be footway links suitably connected as well as recreation ground links which would support the services in Okeford Fitzpaine. The heritage impact was less than substantial harm that would be outweighed by public benefits. Castle Cottage was of architectural interest, and the setting contributes to significance of the village and the historic agriculture setting. However, the rural setting had been eroded by modern development. The less than substantial harm to the cottage would be reduced by a green buffer and landscaping. In terms of ecology, the foraging habitat would be retained and enhanced, and trees would be protected by a tree protection condition. The separation between neighbouring properties would be acceptable at 20-30 meters and there was no flood risk or drainage issues.

Public Participation

Simon Wheeler

Mr Wheeler explained that there was already planning permission for over 70 new dwellings, adding to the 75 completed in the last two years. This application was for a further 78 dwellings. He added that cumulatively and compared to the size of the village, this was significant development. He quoted paragraph 110 of the NPPF – significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made, sustainable. Okeford may have once been considered a sustainable location, but it was no longer. Nor did this development make it sustainable. He concluded that the proposal therefore failed the test. He also explained that the report also claimed the village offered a reasonable level of facilities to meet day-to-day needs. This was no longer true as the school had closed, the shop had been for sale for 2 years, the pub operated on restricted hours, and public transports had been cut back. The report wrongly suggested that this development would support local jobs. Houses were already built on former employment sites. Once the construction jobs had gone, local jobs would depend on tourism, farming and equestrian businesses – which depended on rural charm – the very thing that this scheme would damage. He went through transport, highways and safety informing that Okeford was not on any main road or transport corridor. It could not be compared to larger, more connected settlements. The already limited bus service was vulnerable to being reduced further as the ‘Okeford loop’ takes time. The ‘Marnhull loop’ was cut in similar circumstances. This scheme was expected to support the services in Shillingstone as a ‘cluster’?  He asked if any of the Committee had tried to walk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

Change of use of the land & erection of Holiday Lodges & Staff Accommodation units, together with installation of infrastructure to form a 5* exclusive Holiday Lodge Park in lieu of the current land use of motor racing circuit, shooting ground & static caravan park.

Item deferred to a future meeting.

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.