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.

Cllr S Florek declared an interest to agenda item 8, it was agreed that he would not take part in the debate or vote but would read out a statement as Local Ward Member and would leave the room when the item was considered.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 14^th January 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 16 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.

Erect a mixed use development comprising of retirement living apartments, general market apartments, commercial units falling within class e (a), (c), (f) and (g subsection i), a café/drive through, EV charging station, public park and square (revised plans and information submitted June 2025).

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans, aerial photographs and submitted drawings, the Case Officer identified the site within the Eastern Area in relation to Parley Cross, outlining the surrounding context, key views and the belt of mature trees along the western boundary. The site formed part of the Eastern Road allocation at West Parley under Policy FWP6, with Policy FWP5 supporting retail improvements. Outline permission had previously been granted, with subsequent amendments through reserved matters, including the Lidl supermarket.

The proposal comprised retirement living apartments, a café with drive-thru, EV charging and public open space, supported by illustrative material and details of materials. The application had been advertised in 2024 and 2025. Statutory consultees raised no objections overall, although West Parley Parish Council objected. The site lay within the urban area and was not allocated employment land. While retail floorspace would be lost, officers considered the benefits, including meeting strong demand for retirement housing and contributing to housing supply, outweighed the harm. The scheme was considered sustainable and compliant with the development plan, including Policies LN3 and LN6, and was supported by a reviewed viability assessment.

The apartment mix exceeded national space standards and was deemed appropriate. The Highway Authority raised no objection, confirming the development would be safe and accessible. Parking provision, including 36 spaces for the retirement units with the inclusion of 3 disabled bays, mobility scooter storage, and parking for the café and drive-thru, was considered policy compliant. The design responded to local context, with revisions improving articulation and creating a varied skyline. The contemporary appearance, landscaping, native planting, open space provision and biodiversity enhancements, including biodiversity net gain, were considered acceptable. The site lay mainly within Flood Zone 1, drainage arrangements were satisfactory, and noise mitigation would be secured by condition.

Heathland mitigation contributions would be secured due to the site’s proximity to the New Forest, with an adjacent SANG available. Airport safeguarding requirements would be addressed by condition. The recommendation was to delegate authority to grant planning permission subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and conditions, or to refuse permission if the agreement was not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed.

The officer’s recommendation was to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East to either:

A)   GRANT planning permission following completion of a S106 Planning Obligation agreement and subject to conditions

     OR

B)   Refuse permission if the S106 agreement is not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East

Public Participation

Mr G Monkcom, a resident of West Parley, addressed the Committee and confirmed that his original objection to the application remained. He raised a number of concerns, including the lack of need for a drive-through café and his objection to the drive-through element, stating  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

Erection of 15 dwellings together with the provision of a central green, sports space, community land, associated parking and infrastructure.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies, advising that an updated information pack had been published and circulated. The site lay adjacent to the settlement boundary, partly within the Langton Matravers Conservation Area, with nearby Grade II listed buildings and public rights of way crossing and adjoining the land. Formerly used as school playing fields, the site was bordered by housing to the south and east and farmland to the west and north. Views from the High Street, existing access arrangements and surrounding facilities were shown, and it was noted that mature trees would be retained where possible to preserve the rural character.

The proposal comprised residential development including 40% affordable housing, delivering a balanced mix, together with a central green, new access arrangements and a comprehensive landscape strategy. Officers advised that there would be no harm to the Conservation Area or listed buildings, with appropriate separation distances and additional landscaping providing screening. All dwellings would have private gardens, good light and safe pedestrian access. Twenty-five third-party representations had been received. Highways, refuse and servicing arrangements were considered acceptable, and public rights of way would be safeguarded. The scheme provided biodiversity enhancements and an acceptable drainage strategy within Flood Zone 1. Although the former sports field would be lost, it had not been used since the school’s closure, and a new sports court and long-term community provision were proposed. Officers concluded that any limited harm was outweighed by the wider community benefits.

The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East to either:

A)   GRANT planning permission subject to conditions as set out at the end of this report and the completion of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 agreement) to secure: - 40% affordable housing - Education contribution - Special education needs contribution - GP surgery contribution - Public right of way contribution

Or

B)   Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below if the S106 agreement is not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East..

Public Participation

Mr Leigh Merrick spoke in objection, describing the proposal as the third phase of development by the applicant and noting that the second phase, which began in spring 2023, was only now nearing completion almost four years later. He raised ongoing concerns regarding flooding and drainage and referred to the conservation area and national landscape designation, stating that the site was closely linked with established rights of way and that the development would be harmful. He also highlighted the village’s low provision of shops, services and employment, the presence of vacant units, and highway safety concerns relating to a dangerous junction and narrow High  ...  view the full minutes text for item 85.

Partial Demolition, external alterations and change of use to create three residential dwellings with associated landscaping and parking.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans, aerial photographs and site photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. The site lay outside the defined settlement boundary and comprised a building originally constructed for agricultural purposes. The proposal sought partial demolition and conversion, with associated landscape and parking provision. Members were shown photographs of the site and barn curtilage, together with proposed floor plans and elevations. The total floor area had been reduced by four square metres, and details included a balcony designed to allow views towards the coast. Enhancements through additional landscape planting were proposed, and the conversion was considered capable of providing sufficient daylight. Further conditions were recommended to restrict external lighting.

An objection had been received from the Parish Council on the grounds that the development was not compatible with the landscape and represented an expansion of residential use outside the settlement boundary. No letters of objection had been received from third parties. The proposal included on-site parking and turning provision, and access arrangements were considered acceptable. Case officer corrected error in committee report as 6 parking spaces proposed not 9. An illustrative 3D comparison view was presented. The ecological assessment had been approved, there were no flood risk issues, and impacts on Dorset heathland would be mitigated through secured CIL contributions. No affordable housing contribution could be secured due to vacant building credit. Policy H14 to secure homes as primary dwellings. Officers summarised the key issues and recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as tilted balance applied and benefits of the proposal towards housing land supply not outweighed by adverse impacts. The Officer recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Ms Emily Jeffries, speaking as agent, stated that the site was underutilised and no longer in active use, making its repurposing sensible. She noted that the proposal addressed the Council’s housing land supply, with the only change being the proposed use, while the design remained identical to the previously approved scheme. She highlighted that the earlier scheme had a positive impact and contributed to the Dorset National Landscape, and that the current proposal was high-quality, consistent with the setting, and incorporated natural materials. Ms Jeffries confirmed that the development contributed to the Council’s five-year housing land supply and commended the officer’s recommendation.

Members questions and comments

• Raised concerns regarding the adequacy of parking provision for four-bedroom dwellings.
• Commented on the height of the proposed building.
• Noted the need to ensure sufficient space for parking.

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 as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Barry Goringe, and seconded by Cllr Scott Florek, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

Erect extension to existing annexe, flue.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans, aerial photographs and photographs of the existing building, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies to Members. The location and site context were explained, and existing and proposed plans, floor plans and elevations were displayed. Members were advised that the dwelling had previously been significantly extended, and the proposal sought further enlargement as shown on the submitted site plans. The Local Ward Member had expressed support for the application. 

Officers advised that the site lay within the Green Belt and that the proposed extensions were considered disproportionate to the original dwellinghouse. As such, the development was inappropriate and would result in harm by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness. The proposal did not fall within any of the exceptions identified in policy as not constituting inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and no very special circumstances had been advanced that would clearly outweigh the identified harm. The Officer recommendation was to refuse permission. 

Public Participation 

Councillor Scott Florek, on behalf of Councillor Duncan Sowry-House, spoke in support of the small single-storey annex extension for multigenerational living. He noted it was sympathetic to the area, caused no harm to the street scene, and was low and discreet. Flood risk, drainage, and biodiversity concerns could be managed, no highway issues were identified, and the social benefits were clear, outweighing any harm. He invited the Committee to approve the application. 

Members questions and comments 

• Noted that the proposal would have limited impact on openness. 

• Sought clarification on whether there would be access from the proposed annex into the existing dwelling or if they would remain separate. 

• Queried what harm, if any, the proposal would cause to the surrounding area. 

• Asked whether the extension constituted a disproportionate addition to the annex or the main building. 

• Raised a query regarding “limited infilling” from the report and whether the proposal would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt. 

• Councillor Coombs proposed granting the application under the relevant section of the NPPF, noting that the development would remain ancillary to the existing dwelling; the motion was seconded by Councillor Morgan but fell at the vote. 

• Raised concern that granting the application could set a precedent, noting that the applicant had not engaged in a pre-application discussion. 

• Queried whether the Council’s five-year housing land supply affected the decision. 

• Noted that the report did not provide evidence that the development would support intergenerational living. 

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 GRANT the officer’s recommendation and REFUSE the application, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by Cllr Alex Brenton, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.  

Decision: To refuse for the reasons set out in Section 16 of the officer’s report. 

Erect a classroom dome ancillary to existing kindergarten.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans, aerial photographs and an artist’s impression, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. The development comprised a modest dome to support an existing land-based rural business, positioned alongside the visitor centre and read as an extension. Its scale, design and non-reflective outer surface were considered appropriate within the rural context and would not result in adverse visual impact or harm to Green Belt openness. The proposal was considered appropriate development within the Green Belt.

The site lay within an area of high groundwater levels; however, there was no identified surface water flood risk. The scheme was compliant with Core Strategy Policy ME6, with acceptable vehicular access onto the A31 and no material impact on the highway network. Impacts on trees and biodiversity were assessed as acceptable subject to mitigation. The recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informative notes as set out in the Officer’s report. The Officer recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Emily Jeffries, speaking as agent, stated that the proposed extension to the existing kindergarten was modest in scale with limited visual impact when viewed in context. She noted that the structure would be durable and require minimal maintenance, with negligible detrimental light spill, and that the development would support the continued growth of the facility.

Alex Shepherd, speaking as applicant, highlighted the significant impact of the proposal on early years education, noting its role in connecting children with conservation. He emphasised that the site attracted visits from universities nationally and internationally and described the development, including the dome, as the next chapter in the site’s work, making a meaningful difference to the community.

Members questions and comments

• Noted that the proposal represented a great opportunity.
• Highlighted that it would provide excellent facilities and experiences for young children.

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 as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out in Section 17 of the officer’s report.

Replace storage kiosk. Retention and relocation of Bamford's Water Pump. Demolition of stone and concrete plinth (with a variation of conditions 1 and 4 of planning permission P/FUL/2022/04609 to update drawings following design changes and relocation of pump no longer required)

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans, aerial photographs and site photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. The site lay within the town centre, the Green Belt and the Conservation Area. Members were advised of site constraints, including flood risk, and were shown photographs of the existing kiosk and its prominent quayside setting.

The application sought a variation of conditions to amend the design of a previously approved kiosk, reducing its footprint and altering the structure in response to flood risk. A smaller metal-framed building was proposed, with the pump retained in existing location. Approved and proposed site plans were compared, together with elevation drawings and details of materials. Metal structure to be finished in slate grey colour with timber cladding and roof to be added later in the year Officers advised that the key considerations related to the character and appearance of the area. Matters of principle do not need to be considered as a variation to a previously approved scheme. No objections had been received from the Town Council. The recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions and informative notes as set out in the report. The Officer recommendation was to grant subject to conditions.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Welcomed the proposal, noting that the reduced footprint would provide better working conditions.
• Observed that the slightly smaller building was more effective in its design and function.

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 as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Beryl Ezzard, and seconded by Cllr Toni Coombs, subject to conditions and informative notes set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out in Section 17 of the officer’s report.

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.