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 Brenton declared that application P/FUL/2022/01095 was located in her ward, however she was not pre-determined.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2026 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 8:00am on Monday 09 March 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 25 dwellings (C3 use class), new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Wimborne Road and other associated works including landscaping and open space.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for the erection of 25 dwellings with new vehicular and pedestrian access and associated works. An update was provided at the outset, clarifying that the CIL receipt was £497,000 and that public open space would be secured through a Section 106 agreement rather than by planning condition. It was also noted that the smaller apartment block proposed included one one‑bedroom flat and one two‑bedroom flat.

The site location within Lytchett Matravers was shown, including an aerial photograph illustrating the full extent of the application site. The land lay south of Wimborne Road and was situated between both older and more recent developments. Site constraints were identified, including falling land levels. Photographs from various viewpoints were presented, including a view from the southwestern corner of the site and a street‑view image from Wimborne Road.

It was explained that the site was allocated under Policy H6, which covered three separate sites, one of which (the Wareham Road site) had already been granted planning permission. A timeline of the application was provided.

The proposed masterplan was shown, including the design concept with an arrival area incorporating public open space and drainage at the eastern end of the site. Land‑use areas were defined for residential development and public open space. The proposal comprised 25 dwellings with a housing mix ranging from a one‑bedroom flat to four‑bedroom houses, and 0.5 hectares of open space. Examples of the house designs were displayed, along with an indicative rendering of the overall development. Members were informed that 75 objections had been received and that both the Parish Council and the Housing Officer had raised objections.

On the principle of development, the Lead Project Officer explained that the proposal was acceptable because it was located on an allocated housing site and Policy H6 indicated that approximately 25 homes were appropriate. Policy V2 concerns were addressed, with it being explained that although the site had previously lain within the Green Belt, the Local Plan adoption had amended the boundaries. A small part of the site, containing only the SUDS attenuation basin, remained within the Green Belt, but this was not considered inappropriate development. The proposed housing mix varied from Local Plan recommendations but was considered acceptable.

It was explained that the policy‑compliant requirement was for 10 affordable homes on site. The applicant had submitted a viability assessment, citing increased CIL costs and the costs of achieving nutrient neutrality in Poole Harbour. The District Valuer had reviewed the assessment and advised that the scheme was not viable if required to provide a fully compliant level of contributions. As a result, the scheme could not support any Section 106 contributions.

On highways matters, the proposed vehicular access would be provided via a new priority junction, with a secondary pedestrian access also proposed. The applicant had revised the junction design, narrowing the corner to help reduce vehicle speeds. Dorset Council Highways raised no objections. Parking provision included 57 allocated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Erect single storey rear extension & bin store, demolish existing garage and conservatory. Change of use of residential property (Use Class C3) to pharmacy (Use Class E).

The Planning Officer presented the application for a single‑storey rear extension and bin store, together with the demolition of the existing garage and conservatory, and the change of use of the residential property to a pharmacy (Class E).

The application site was shown, located across the road from the existing pharmacy. It was explained that the site lay on a minor road characterised by detached single-storey or chalet style bungalows, while the current pharmacy operated from a terrace of commercial properties nearby.

The application site consisted of a residential bungalow accessed from Weston Road. Photographs were displayed showing the property attached to No. 9 Weston Road, with an open frontage, driveway and garage. A photograph taken from Middlehill Road illustrated the character of the area and the proximity of the existing pharmacy.

The proposed development was outlined and the site plan presented. Elevation drawings showed the front and side aspects of the proposed extension. It was noted that although the scheme would result in the loss of one dwelling, this was not considered to be a significant loss. The proposed pharmacy would serve the same catchment area and provide the same NHS facilities as the existing one. The site lay within the Colehill settlement boundary and as the proposal did not involve a town centre use, no sequential test was required.

Amenity impacts were highlighted as a key concern. Objections had been raised by neighbours and the Town Council. It was explained that the proposal would introduce frequent short‑stay customer visits, increasing the number of vehicle movements and parking demand. Weston Road was described as a small cul‑de‑sac used only by residents and their visitors, and the level of activity associated with a pharmacy was likely to exceed what could reasonably be expected in such a location. This was judged to negatively affect the amenity of residents. Additional features such as alarm boxes, CCTV and deliveries were also identified as potential sources of disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. It was considered that the activity pattern generated by the proposed use would be materially different from that of the existing residential setting.

The impact on the character of the area was assessed and it was considered that the proposed extension would increase the footprint of the property bringing it almost up to the boundary with 27 Middlehill Road, contrasting with the typical plot characteristics of the area, where dwellings were well spaced on generous plots. The inclusion of large display‑style windows and an expanded hardstanding area for parking would alter the appearance of what was currently a wholly residential street scene.

In regard to highways and parking, both on‑site parking and parking on Middlehill Road were available, Dorset Highways had confirmed that the proposal would not give rise to material harm to highway safety and complied with current guidance. Limited on‑site parking was noted to be common for pharmacies, which were recognised as important community facilities.

The Planning Officer concluded that the proposal would result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Demolish garage and outbuilding and erect 2 No 2 bedroom bungalows with parking. Creation of new parking area to No 50 & 51.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for the demolition of a garage and outbuilding and the erection of two two‑bedroom bungalows with associated parking, together with the creation of new parking areas for Nos. 50 and 51. An update was provided advising that, since publication of the committee papers, an additional representation had been received from residents of Newton Road raising concerns about increased flood risk from the proposal.

The site context within Sturminster Marshall was shown, including the application site and adjoining garages. Neighbourhood Plan policies’ recognition of the distinctive character of the area were highlighted. A street‑scene view from the recreation ground was presented, identifying the garage to be demolished. The proposed new access would run between No. 51 and the existing garage. It was considered that single‑storey development could be achieved without harming the established character of the area.

The design of the proposed bungalows was shown and described as using traditional materials. Reference was made to a previous appeal in the vicinity where back land development had been allowed, with the Planning Inspector acknowledging the area’s varied character. A previous planning application on this site had been refused; the new proposal had amended the access position and moved Unit 2 further forward in its plot. Members were also informed that planning permission had previously been granted to create an additional dwelling on the plot of No 51, which could not be implemented should the new scheme be approved.

Concerns had been raised regarding neighbouring amenity. However, as the proposed dwellings were single storey with pitched roofs, officers considered they would not result in unacceptable impacts. Photographs of rear gardens were shown, demonstrating limited visibility. The presence of obscure‑glazed windows in facing elevations was noted and the removal of permitted development rights for roof alterations was proposed.

The Lead Project Officer explained that the creation of new parking spaces would lead to some loss of off‑street parking, but this was not regarded as significant. Flood risk concerns had also been raised. Flood zone mapping for the wider area was shown, and it was confirmed that the application site itself was not identified as being at risk of flooding. The development would incorporate permeable paving and a soakaway chamber to manage surface water. It was noted that the Council could not demonstrate a five‑year housing land supply and that the tilted balance therefore applied.

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Tim Weaver, Sue Eaton and Cllr Helen Fookes, representing Sturminster Parish Council. The objections to the application included the overdevelopment of the area, which would impact the character of the road and worsen flooding issues on Newton Road and that the proposed bungalows would be out of keeping with the existing semi-detached properties in the area.

David McDonald, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He noted that he would also be the builder of the development and would therefore ensure that the building work did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

Variation of Condition 1 of application 3/19/2426/RM (approval of reserved matters application in respect of appearance, layout, scale and landscaping following outline planning application 3/15/0789/COU for residential development of 305 dwellings) to revise the landscaping and drainage (resubmission of previously refused and withdrawn applications)

The Committee agreed to extend the meeting beyond 3 hours.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for a variation of Condition 1 of the previously approved reserved matters application, seeking to revise landscaping details relating to trees and drainage. The application was retrospective and the Town Council had raised an objection. An update was provided to advise that the recommendation had been amended, as the landscape ecological management plan would be difficult to enforce via condition given the retrospective nature of the proposal, the applicants were therefore required to enter into a S106 planning obligation to secure delivery.

Slides were shown identifying the application site in relation to Wimborne and Colehill, along with a photograph of the site as built. The site plan for Phase 1 of the development was presented, with the trees proposed for amendment marked on the plan. It was noted that Phase 2 had been approved under a separate application.

A site plan illustrating the drainage layout was also shown. The site history was outlined, it was explained that the land formed part of allocation WMC8, and the relevant policy was displayed. The outline planning application had included a parameter plan, and reserved matters were approved in 2019 and amended in 2022 to allow an uplift of 18 dwellings. A further additional dwelling had been approved in 2022. Phase 2 had been approved in 2020. It was noted that a previous proposal for SUDS on the western side of the site had been refused due to insufficient drainage information.

The Lead Project Officer outlined the proposed development, comparing the approved reserved matters scheme with the revised SUDS layout. The proposed tree species were shown. Concerns had been raised through objections to both the previously refused application and a withdrawn application.

Although the application sought to vary landscaping plans, the Lead Project Officer advised that it was not unusual for SUDS features to be located within open space, nor for tree species to be amended. The impact on local character was considered acceptable, as only two trees would be affected and the proposed species were consistent with the area’s character.

It was explained that the SUDS area would remain undeveloped green space providing visual amenity and substantial open space for residents. The development also benefitted from access to the Phase 2 open spaces and the SANG located to the south.

The Tree Officer had confirmed that the proposed species were appropriate but preferred a non-fastigiate variety and it was considered that the changes would not impact the character of the area. Although some concern had been expressed regarding the health of an existing tree, no issues had been identified. There were no changes proposed to the highway network, and Dorset Council Highways had raised no objections to the previously withdrawn application.

Drainage had been a key issue in the earlier refusal; however, the Officer explained that the submission of detailed drainage information could overcome the previous reason for refusal. Drainage engineers had reviewed the current approach.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

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.