Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs 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 19 November 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 19 November 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 15 December.

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 to a dog exercise park to include the formation of car parking areas, fencing and storage container.

Councillor Hobbs-Chell entered the meeting at 10:16.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the change of use of land to a dog exercise park and the formation of car parking areas, along with the fencing and the placement of a storage container. The application history was outlined, noting that the original decision, that had granted permission under delegated powers had been quashed.

The site location within Cole Hill was shown on a map, along with a proposal plan identifying the main and additional entrances to the two separate dog parks, both outlined on the plan. It was explained that both parts of the park would be available for hire during daylight hours, with no lighting proposed on site. Photographs of the storage container were shown, which would be used for storing land maintenance equipment. The park areas were confirmed as approximately 0.7 hectares and 1.5 hectares. It was noted that customers would be required to sign up to terms and conditions when booking and CCTV would be installed on site to ensure that users of the park complied with the rules.

The use of the park was considered to have limited visual impact from the highway. Photographs of the access and both dog parks, including their boundaries with the public right of way, were presented. The context of the location was discussed. Concerns had been raised that it was too far from the urban area, but officers considered the proposal to represent rural land diversification. The Highways had team confirmed they were satisfied with the visibility splays and the road accessing the site already served dwellings, public land and two public houses, with some wide sections allowing passing. Drivers were expected to drive with reasonable consideration and the dog park would operate on a pre-booking basis, meaning vehicle movements would be controlled.

The impact on heritage assets was considered, noting that the boundary extended around listed buildings. It was noted that the highway was in regular use and additional cars generated by the proposal were not expected to change the character of the road. The development would not result in any significant changed experience of the heritage assets. The ecological impacts of the proposal were outlined and it was explained that there had been concerns raised by third parties about impacts on protected species. However, no evidence had been identified that showed that protected species were using the site and the Council’s Natural Environment team were satisfied that more than 10% biodiversity net gain could be achieved and that protected species would not be harmed.

The impact on neighbouring amenity was addressed, with noise identified as a significant concern of objectors. A noise impact assessment had been submitted in support of the application, which considered the impact of six dogs and six people in park 1 closest to the neighbouring properties. Officers considered that the impact on residential properties would be limited and that baseline noise levels were not unusual given the proximity to the highway and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Construction of a detached chalet bungalow.

The Committee agreed to extend the meeting beyond three hours.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the erection of a dwelling, with the location of the site shown within Bere Regis. Site constraints were displayed on a map and it was noted that land adjacent to the site was owned by Dorset Council.

Photographs of the site and its access were shown, confirming that the land was in private ownership and enclosed on both sides. Additional photographs illustrated views of the site looking towards the school.

Existing and proposed site plans were presented, showing a single bungalow with two parking spaces and a garden area. It was highlighted that the Council did not have a five-year land supply so the tilted balance in favour of development applied. The proposal was considered infill development that was not out of keeping with the area. The slope of the site would allow the bungalow to sit comfortably within wider views. Proposed elevations were shown, with a hipped roof design reflecting other properties on Egdon Close. Floor plans and roof plans were also displayed.

The proposal was assessed as causing no loss of amenity or light. The window would only allow oblique views of the school and neighbouring gardens, so no adverse impact on amenity was expected. A condition would require that the bathroom window be obscure glazed and another condition required the rooflight above the stairwell to be non-opening and obscure glazed, with permitted development rights removed for further windows.

A proposed surface water drainage plan was submitted. Although the site was not at risk of flooding, there was flooding nearby. The drainage plan offered potential betterment and biodiversity enhancement and soft landscaping would be required by condition, along with Community Infrastructure Levy contributions.

Highway safety and parking were considered, with engineers raising no issues and noting that vehicle movements would be fewer than previous uses. Accessibility for fire and emergency vehicles was discussed, as the width of the access did not meet the 3.7 metres required for a fire engine to reverse into the site. Compliance with building regulations would be necessary and the agent had confirmed that a sprinkler system would be installed to ensure compliance.

The loss of off-street parking was raised, as the application site had previously been used for resident parking. It was acknowledged that residents were concerned about this loss, but alternative parking had been provided and the ownership of the land was now in different hands. Seven alternative payable licenced spaces had been provided by Aster, which was considered sufficient to offset the loss.

Matthew Holmes spoke as the agent for the application. He noted that the site would provide a similar sized plot to other homes in the area and the scheme also offered biodiversity enhancements on site. He stated that the development was well designed and in keeping with the area and that residential amenity would be protected through the proposed conditions.

Officers provided the following responses to members questions:

·       The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Demolition of the existing buildings, removal of storage containers and erection of replacement building for the seasonal sale of fireworks and associated year-round storage.

Cllrs Andy Skeats, Julie Robinson, and Hannah Hobbs-Chell left the meeting at 12:59.

The Planning Officer presented the application for the demolition of existing buildings and removal of storage containers, and the erection of a replacement building for fireworks sale and storage. The location of the site was shown on a map, and it was noted that the use for seasonal sale of fireworks and storage was established, with two buildings and storage containers currently used for seasonal sales and year-round storage.

The proposal was to demolish the existing buildings and storage containers and erect a new building. A photograph of the site from the road and plans of the proposed building were shown. The site was screened by mature trees, and the design was considered to be in accordance with policy. The proposed building represented an increase in volume compared to the two existing buildings and would also be higher than the existing buildings, but it would remain modest in height. The proposal was considered to be of modest scale, resulting in a limited loss of openness in the green belt. It was concluded that the proposal accorded with the exception in the National Planning Policy Framework and was therefore not inappropriate development within the green belt.

The Slop Bog Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) lay to the south of the site and impacts on the SSSI would be managed by condition. The local Ward Member had raised concern about the lack of water on site in case of a fire, but it was noted that the site already had permission for fireworks sale and storage. The impact on trees was considered and the latest Environment Agency mapping was referenced, showing the site within flood zones 2 and 3, however the use of the site fell within the ‘less vulnerable’ classification.

Flooding maps were displayed, indicating that parking spaces would be at risk of flooding. This triggered the requirement for a sequential test, but no sequential test had been submitted. However, the surface water management plan was deemed acceptable by the Council’s flood risk team. While the proposal failed to comply with policy requiring a sequential test, it was considered that the reduction in flood risk provided by the proposal outweighed this policy conflict.

Dan Wilden spoke as the agent for the application. He noted that the proposal was planned to take place only on the strip of tarmac running through the site, meaning there would be no impact on trees or the surrounding environment. He also noted that the current buildings on site were reaching the end of their lives and replacing them would provide a safer premises for the business. In addition, the applicant was required to apply for a yearly licence from the Council and the site was regularly inspected by Trading Standards.

In response to questions and comments from members, officers provided the following responses:

·       Trading Standards dealt with safety issues in relation to the storage of the fireworks.

·       The buildings were proposed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 70.

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.