Agenda and minutes

To disclose any pecuniary, other registrable or personal interest as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct.  In making their decision 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 02 April 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 02 April 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 Monday 28 April 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.

Retention of a stable/rural building. Siting of a mobile home to be used as a temporary rural worker’s dwelling with sheds for ancillary residential storage. Change of use of land to a mixed agricultural and alpaca trekking enterprise.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Senior Planning Officer identified the site and explained the proposal. The barn and building to be retained were identified on a site plan and aerial photograph. Photographs of the site, access and nearby road were also shown to members.

The planning history of the site was explained and included a previous application that had been refused, for the conversion of the existing building into rural worker’s accommodation.

Officers considered that the proposal was compliant with planning policy, as the mobile home and storage shed would have minimal impact on the Green Belt due to their modest size and the mixed use would be in keeping with the rural character of the area. A rural worker’s dwelling was considered appropriate due to the high level of care required for the livestock.

It was explained that the Town Council had objected to the application on the grounds of the impact on heritage assets, due to the proximity to St Hubert’s Church, however the Conservation Officer had not raised objection to the proposal.

Public representation was received from the applicant, Mr Cooper, who explained that the farm provided community benefits, such as working with children and adults with additional needs and providing training for students working towards agricultural qualifications.

The meeting adjourned at 10:24 – 10:25 to allow the case officer to clarify information before answering member’s questions.

In response to questions from members the Senior Planning Officer provided the following responses:

·       The alpaca treks didn’t cross public roads and went onto the old railway line adjacent to the site.

·       Husbandry of the alpacas required intensive care which justified the use of a worker’s dwelling, temporary permission was being recommended which would require a new application after 3 years.

·       It was not known whether the applicant had explicit permission from the landowner to use the old railway line for treks.

·       Mobile homes do not have the same permitted development rights as other residential dwellings.

·       The Historic Landscape Character Area data on Dorset Explorer was not considered to be a material planning consideration.

·       The permission for the ancillary residential buildings was also recommended to be temporary.

·       Parts of the application site was subject to surface water flooding, however not where the buildings were proposed and ground water flooding was proven to be low risk.

·       The use of the site for agricultural usage was lawful and would not require planning permission and a condition on livestock density couldn’t be reasonably imposed.

Having had the opportunity to ask questions of the case officer and debate the merits of the application, several members raised questions about the application, including the exterior cladding which they considered to give the structure a more permanent appearance, the legal use of the trail for trekking and whether the worker’s dwelling could be occupied by a widow or retired worker for longer than the 3 year temporary permission. Members considered that they required further information on these points in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

Demolish garage and outbuilding and erect 2 No 2 bedroom bungalows with parking. Creation of new parking area to No 50.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the demolition of a garage and outbuilding and the erection of 2 bungalows with parking.

The site was outlined on a map of the area. It was explained that the special character of the 1950s estate, with dwellings set around the open space, was recognised in the Neighbourhood Plan. Attention was drawn to back land dwellings on Churchill Close, with similarity to the proposal, that had been granted at appeal prior to the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan and to bungalows to the north of Churchill Close.

The site plan was shown to members and the location of the outbuilding and garage, which were set to be removed were identified. The proposed floor plans and elevations of the two new bungalows were provided and it was explained that due to the back land position, the single storey design was judged to be in keeping as it would not compromise the character of the estate.

The key constraints of the application site were summarised. Officers considered that the pitched roofs would prevent an adverse impact on neighbour amenity and the location of the new bungalows would be typical of the existing dwellings in the area. Oblique overlooking from a neighbouring first floor bedroom window would not demonstrably harm amenity for future occupiers. There was not considered to be any parking or highway safety issues arising, ground water flood risk had been discounted and a surface water management plan had been provided including use of a soakaway.

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Mr Eaton, Mr Weaver and Cllr Palmer. They stated that the new properties would have a negative impact on the character of the area contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan and harm to neighbouring amenity by causing excess noise pollution and obstructing views from the neighbouring properties. They also raised concerns about the impact the properties would have on local flooding issues, by increasing the areas of hardstanding and the wildlife impact.

Mr Miell, spoke in support of the application as the agent, he stated that the character and appearance of the bungalows would be in keeping with the area and that they would be screened from the street scene by the existing properties.

In response to the public speakers the Development Management Team Leader clarified that the hard surfacing would be permeable to mitigate against flooding and officers did not consider any overlooking to be harmful to the neighbouring properties.

The Development Management Team Leader provided the following responses to members questions:

·       There was fencing and hedging in place to provide screening between plots, additional planting may be achieved however this wasn’t considered necessary to make the application acceptable.

·       Due to the size of the land affected by the application and its use as garden, an Ecological Impact Assessment was not required under the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal Protocol, but a condition could be added to require a reptile survey if judged necessary by Members on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

Erect rear single storey extension and carry out internal alterations.

The committee agreed to extend the meeting beyond three hours.

The meeting adjourned 12:48 – 12:59

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application, for the erection of a single storey rear extension, which had been objected to by the Parish Council.

The location of the application site was identified on a map of the area and photographs of the dwelling were shown from various viewpoints. The site consisted of a single bedroom Grade II listed cottage with a single storey rear extension and the proposal was to erect an additional rear extension to create a larger living area. It was explained that the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that it would be an inappropriate development.

The elevations and plans of the proposed extension were shown to members and it was explained that the Conservation Officer had not raised any objection to the proposal. Officers considered that the benefits of the application, which would secure a viable use by providing modern living accommodation, outweighed the less than substantial harm of the loss of historic fabric and noted that listed building consent had already been granted.

The Parish Council had also objected to the application on the grounds of loss of light to the neighbouring property, however officers considered that the modest eaves height and sunken ground level would mitigate against significant loss of light. The retention of off-street parking and intention to manage surface water was also noted. 

Having had the chance to debate the merits of the application members were in agreement that the proposal would offer benefits in modernising the accommodation of a traditional cottage.

It was proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Sowry-House that the application be granted.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to conditions set out in the appendix to these 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.

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.