Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Duncan Sowry-House, Toni Coombs, Spencer Flower and Barry Goringe.

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 04 June 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 04 June 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 Monday 21 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.

Change of Use and Conversion of Four Existing Agricultural Buildings to Class C3 Residential Use Comprising 9 Dwellinghouses, Demolition of Redundant Outbuildings, Provision of Parking and Landscaping and Drainage Infrastructure.

The Eastern Area Team Leader, using a visual presentation with plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. It was noted that the site fell outside of the Settlement Boundary and within the Cranbourne Chase National Landscape and that such a development wouldn’t normally be permitted in an isolated rural location, however the reuse of derelict buildings was an exception to this policy outlined in the NPPF.

Members were shown the existing site plan and the buildings set to be refurbished were highlighted. The proposed plans were shown and members were provided with indicative visualisations of the appearance of the completed development and the scale and design of the proposed dwellings, which were considered to be in keeping with the agricultural nature of the site. Photographs from around the site were provided, showing the current condition of the agricultural buildings, as well as the views from beyond the site. It was explained that concerns raised by the Parish Council that included visibility from the access junction and flood risk to the highway had been considered by officers but the proposals were deemed acceptable.

Mr Bennett spoke in support of the application as the agent. He noted that the scheme would deliver a cohesive residential community and make good use of a currently derelict site. He also noted that the access road currently already served nearby dwellings, so it would be able to cope with the additional road users.

The Eastern Area Team Leader and Highway Engineers provided the following responses to members questions:

·       Officers recognised that the proposed public amenity space on the development was limited, however due to each dwelling having its own private garden, it was considered that there was sufficient outside space to serve the development.

·       Brise-Soleil would be installed to reduce the visibility of the glazing and reduce light spill.

·       The applicant had provided a thorough analysis of the suitability of the access lane, which conformed to the rural roads criteria.

·       All sections of the road complied with the criteria of requiring less than 200m without a passing place.

·       The roofs would be constructed of interlocking grey tiles and a condition would require submission of materials before approval.

·       Officers would be hesitant to introduce more formalised passing places along the access road as they would change the character of the area, which lies within the National Landscape.

·       There were 19 proposed car parking spaces, with 6 being allocated and the rest unallocated.

·       There was a proposed condition that restricted all external lighting.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application several members had raised concerns they had with the application, which included the lack of amenity space for residents, the potential light pollution from the dwellings and the lack of access to the surrounding countryside. Members agreed to change the wording of the condition for external lighting to ensure it was more robust and add an informative note to the proposal that reflected their discussion about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Demolish remaining agricultural buildings and change the use and conversion of 3 No. Existing Agricultural Buildings to 5 No. Dwellings (Class C3) with associated parking and erect 2 no. car ports.

The meeting adjourned at 11:30 – 11:36.

The Planning Officer, using a visual presentation with plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. It was noted that the site was in a rural location, outside of the settlement boundary and within the National Landscape.

The existing site plans were shown and the three disused agricultural buildings that were set to be converted were highlighted.  The proposed site plan showed the design and scale of the dwellings and the proposed floor plans and elevations were also provided. Photographs looking into the site from the surrounding area and of the site itself were provided, to give members an indication of the current condition of the disused site.

The Planning Officer addressed concerns that had been raised by the Parish Council about highways and parking and noted that the 15 spaces were considered acceptable for a development of this scale.

Mr Bennet spoke in support of the application, as the agent. He noted that the applicant had worked closely with Dorset Council officers in the pre-application stage to present a suitable scheme and that the development would make good use of redundant farmland. He also explained that there would be no change to the scale and mass of the existing structures.

Planning officers provided the following responses to questions from members:

·       A condition was proposed to restrict the permitted development rights of the dwellings, however if members wished to fully restrict the permitted development rights they would require a demonstrable reason.

·       The car ports were designed to have minimal impact on the landscape.

·       The surface water drainage scheme stated that the hard standing was to be constructed of a permeable material.

·       The condition on permitted development rights did not restrict the placement of garden sheds or outbuildings.

Having had the chance to debate the merits of the application several members expressed support for the proposal, noting that it was a well-designed scheme. The proposer and seconder agreed to a suggested change in the wording of a condition to restrict permitted development rights for the placement of sheds and outbuildings.

It was proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, that the application be granted, with a change of wording to the condition restricting permitted development rights.

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

Erect two new dwellings to the rear of the existing building.

The Eastern Area Team Leader, supported by a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. The proposed site plan and floor plans were shown to members, as well as 3D renders of the proposed dwellings, giving an indication of the design and scale.

It was explained that concerns had been raised about overlooking of neighbouring properties, however obscured glazing would be used in the dormer windows to mitigate this. A surface water drainage strategy was proposed to be secured by condition to ensure the development did not worsen flooding in the area.

Mr Garner spoke in objection to the application, noting that he considered the proposal to result in a significant level of overlooking to his property, as well as a loss of sunlight. In addition, he noted that it would increase traffic in an already busy area.

Mr Annen spoke in support of the application as the agent. He explained that the applicant had worked with Dorset Council officers to ensure an acceptable scheme was brought forward. He also noted that the dwellings would be in keeping with the mixed character of the area.

The following answers were provided to members questions:

·       A condition would be included to ensure that obscure glazing was used on the dormer window looking onto the neighbouring property and that the lower half of the window did not open.

·       The proposed number of parking spaces and their width met Dorset Councils requirements.

·       An informative note could be added to encourage against any further works to the Beech tree on site. 

It was proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, to grant the application, with the amended wording to condition 12 and the informative note on the Beech tree.

Decision: That authority be delegated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and Development Management Area Manager East to either:

A)   Grant planning permission following completion of a S106 Planning Obligation to secure the Affordable Housing Contribution of £52,000 Index Linked index-linked using RPI from the date of this committee report, in lieu of on-site provision and subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

B)   Refuse permission for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes if the s106 agreement is not completed by 23 January 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and/or the Development Management Area Manager East. 

Demolish the garage, sever land and erect a 2 bedroom bungalow with shared vehicular access and parking.

The Planning Officer introduced the proposal, which was for the demolition of a garage and erection of a two-bedroom bungalow. The application had come to committee for determination as the Parish Council had objected.

The proposed elevations and floor plans were shown to members and it was noted that neighbours had objected on the grounds of overlooking and a loss of light, however officers considered that the distance between the dwellings was acceptable. The noise impact was also not considered to be harmful and the proposal had not raised objection from the Dorset Council Tree Officer.

The committee agreed to extend the meeting beyond three hours.

Cllr Fookes, spoke on behalf of Sturminster Newton Parish Council, in objection to the application. She expressed that the dwelling was too large for the size of the plot and that it would be out of character with the area. She also noted concerns about overlooking, flooding and parking.

In response to members questions the following answers were provided:

·       Building regulations would ensure that the property was accessible.

·       Other back land dwellings in the area were two storeys.

·       The location was considered sustainable, due to being a built-up residential area and the proposal was considered an efficient use of land.

·       Permitted development rights were proposed to be restricted by condition.

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members expressed concerns over the proposed dwelling being out of character with the area, while others noted that there had been similar developments built in the area and that it would not substantially change the setting of the street scene.

It was proposed by Cllr Skeats and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, that the application be granted.

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

Erect a replacement dwelling, garage and cycle store on the southern side of the applicant land to the area outlined in red and shown as Plot A on the site/block plan.

The Eastern Area Team Leader introduced the report, the application consisted of a replacement dwelling. It was explained that the application had come before committee because the Town Council had objected on the grounds of it being oversized and overlooking onto neighbouring properties.

The proposed plans and elevations were provided and it was noted that the previous dwelling on the site had been damaged and a replacement two-bedroom, two-storey dwelling was proposed, that would be lower than the previous property. The scale and design were considered appropriate and issues around amenity space had been addressed. Neighbours had objected on the grounds of overlooking, however officers considered that due to obscured glazing and sufficient distances to the neighbours, that the application was acceptable on the grounds of neighbouring amenity.

The Eastern Area Team Leader clarified that there were multiple extant applications for the site and that any material changes made to the approved applications would require a new application.

It was proposed by Cllr Ezzard and seconded by Cllr Florek, that the application be granted.

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

Erect a replacement dwelling with detached garage and detached cycle store. Form new access. Demolish remaining existing.

The Eastern Area Team Leader introduced the application, which was for the erection of a replacement dwelling. It was explained that the proposed scheme was an alternative scheme, similar to the previous approved application, with the main difference being that there was no basement proposed by the application.

It was proposed by Cllr Brenton and seconded by Cllr Hobbs-Chell, that the application be granted.

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

Retained use of the outbuilding and proposed changes to facing materials and ridge height to mitigate reasons for refusal of application P/COU/2021/04183 (Change of Use of Land from Agricultural to an ancillary garden use).

The Planning Officer, using a visual presentation with plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. It was noted that the application was a retrospective application for an outbuilding and in 2024 an application to retain the outbuilding had been refused by officers.

The proposed plans were shown and it was explained that the ridge height of the unauthorised outbuilding was set to be reduced from 4 meters to 2.7 meters. Photographs of the outbuilding were provided and the Planning Officer indicated where the height of the proposed development would be in comparison to the current building. Officers considered that the reduced scale and mass, in addition to the use of more sensitive materials would limit the impact on the character of the area.

Mr Whiteside spoke in support of the application as the applicant. He explained that the planning rules had been misunderstood and that he had worked closely with officers to come to an acceptable solution.

The Planning Officer clarified that there used to be a much smaller shed situated on site and that this had been replaced with a larger outbuilding without planning permission and also confirmed that permitted development rights had been removed for the site.

It was proposed by Cllr Skeats and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, that the application be granted.

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

Retain garage.

The Planning Officer introduced the application, which was a retrospective application for the retention of an outbuilding. It was noted that the Woodland Trust had objected to the application because of the proximity of the site to ancient woodland, however it was considered that the removal of the outbuilding would cause more harm to trees than retaining it. The Planning Officer explained that a certificate of lawfulness for another building on the site had been granted and that if the committee granted permission for the application, then permitted development rights would be removed through condition and the construction of the lawful outbuilding would be prevented by a legal agreement. This was judged to represent very special circumstances to outweigh the harm arising to the Green Belt.

In response to members questions the Planning Officer clarified that the certificate of lawfulness was granted because the dwelling benefitted from full permitted development rights and the location of the proposed building was behind the building line of the dwelling.

It was proposed by Cllr Skeats and seconded by Cllr Brenton, that the application be granted.

Decision:

A)   That authority be delegated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and Development Management Area Manager East to issue planning permission subject to the following conditions following completion of a S106 Planning Obligation that prevents the carrying out of works secured under application P/CLP/2024/07524 and subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

B)   Refuse permission for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes if the s106 agreement is not completed within 6 months of the date of approval or such extended time as agreed by the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and/or the Development Management Area Manager East

Installation of 2no windcatchers to school hall roof.

The Planning Officer presented the application, for the installation of two windcatchers to a school roof and identified the site location and explained the relevant planning policies. It was explained that the site closed in 2021 and remained vacant and the windcatchers were proposed to be installed to provide a sustainable ventilation system for the re-use of the building.

It was proposed by Cllr Skeats and seconded by Cllr Morgan that the application be granted.

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

Removal of existing fencing and erection of new 2.4m and 3m weldmesh fencing.

The Planning Officer introduced the application for the removal of existing fencing and installation of replacement fencing. The location of the site was outlined and an overview of the proposal was provided, along with photographs and plans. The fencing was proposed to be finished in green, in order to minimise the visual impact.

In response to a query from one member the Eastern Area Team Leader explained that the proposal included the replacement of the hedge, in order to install the fence and that an informative note could be included to encourage the applicant to replant the hedge if possible.

It was proposed by Cllr Morgan and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, that the application be granted, with the additional informative note.

Decision: That authority be delegated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and Development Management Area Manager East to GRANT permission following the 21 day owner notification period subject to no further representations being received which raise new material planning considerations, and subject to the 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.