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 11 March 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 March 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 20 April.

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.

Outline planning application for proposed residential development together with open space and associated works (all matters reserved save for means of access).

The Lead Project Officer presented the outline application for residential development with associated open space and works. Members were advised that, since publication of the report, eight additional representations had been received. These had been reviewed and were not considered to alter the recommendation.

It was explained that the application had previously been refused under delegated powers in June 2024. An appeal had subsequently been lodged but was later withdrawn following the Council’s annual position statement demonstrating a housing land supply of more than five years.

The site context was described, with plans showing the location in relation to Wimborne and Colehill. The site was accessed from the southern side of Granville Avenue and was outlined on an aerial photograph. A site constraints analysis was shown, including contour lines illustrating that the land sloped generally from north to south. Photographs of the site and surrounding area were presented, including the existing access point and views showing the relationship to Old Manor Close.

An indicative masterplan was displayed, showing development concentrated on the western part of the site and public open space to the east. The masterplan illustrated up to 49 dwellings, areas of public open space including Local Area of Equipped Play (LEAP) and Local Area of Play (LAP) facilities, a Heathland Infrastructure Project (HIP) area, and access onto Birchdale Road. It was emphasised that the precise scale, layout and appearance would be determined at a later reserved matters stage.

Members were informed that 362 objections had been submitted in relation to the proposals, with a summary shown on screen and full comments available online. The eight additional objections had also been summarised. Objections had been received from Colehill and Wimborne Town Councils and Dorset Wildlife Trust, while other consultees had raised no objections subject to conditions.

In addressing the principle of development, the Lead Project Officer referred to Policy KS2 of the Local Plan, which identified Wimborne Minster as a main area for development and Colehill as a settlement where some growth was expected. As the Council was currently unable to demonstrate a five‑year housing land supply, the tilted balance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied.

The site lay within the green belt, with boundaries following the main urban area. It was explained that the proposal did not fall within the traditional green belt exceptions. However, under paragraph 155 of the NPPF, development should not be considered unacceptable where it utilised grey belt land, there was a demonstrable need for the development, it was in a sustainable location and complied with the “golden rules.” The definition of grey belt was outlined, including the requirement that the land should not strongly contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas, the merging of settlements, or the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment. A detailed assessment had been undertaken, concluding that the site made a weak or no contribution to urban sprawl and limited contribution to separation. The proposal was therefore considered to meet the criteria in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

Repowering of the existing Rogers Hill wind turbine with a larger wind turbine.

The meeting adjourned from 13:39-14:30.

Cllr Morgan left the meeting at 13:39.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the replacement of an existing wind turbine with a larger turbine. It was noted that the application had been brought to committee because of the finely balanced recommendation to approve.

It was explained that there was no site‑specific planning policy allocating the land, but the proposal would replace an existing turbine and generate sufficient renewable energy to supply the equivalent of up to 1,288 households. It was acknowledged that the increased height of the turbine would result in visual impacts, but officers considered that these impacts had been carefully assessed and that, on balance, the benefits of the application outweighed the harms identified.

The site context was shown on a map of the surrounding area. The existing turbine benefitted from a 25‑year planning permission. The proposed replacement turbine would be located approximately 250 metres to the south of the existing turbine and would sit around 15 metres lower in ground level. Permission was sought for a 30‑year operational period. Although the proposed turbine would be almost twice the height of the existing structure, it was described as being of relatively modest size in modern terms, given that turbines of 150–200 metres in height were now common. The blades would rotate more slowly than those of the existing turbine, which was considered to help mitigate visual effects.

The Development Management Team Leader referred to Renewable Energy Policy E3 and advised that the technology was considered suitable for the location. The surrounding land was currently used for motorcycle training and competitive events. The site lay approximately 4.4 kilometres from the National Landscape to the north and around 9.5 kilometres to the south. At these distances, the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment concluded that the turbine would give rise to moderate adverse impact, and members were reminded that great weight must be given to any harm to the National Landscape.

A series of photographs from the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) were shown from various viewpoints, illustrating how the existing and proposed turbines would appear. It was clarified that the accuracy of the representations as presented to the committee via projector was limited and Members had been encouraged to familiarise themselves with the LVIA. Views demonstrated that major and moderate adverse impacts would be limited to the immediate setting of the turbine. Specific viewpoints were shown, including from Wetherby Castle, Milborne St Andrew, Woodbury Hill, Winterborne Whitechurch, East Luscombe, Fishmore Hill, Rosehill Farm and Greenhill Nature Reserve. It was noted that under clearer sky conditions the turbine would appear more prominent. Remaining viewpoints in the LVIA within the National Landscape were further away, where impacts were assessed as negligible or low.

Members were advised that in order to accord with National Landscape policy compensation was. The proposal included a landscape enhancement scheme to help offset the moderate harm to the National Landscape. This would be secured through a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

Use of land as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) with associated access, landscaping, infrastructure and alterations to road.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for the use of land as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), together with associated landscaping, infrastructure works and alterations to the road. An update was provided, confirming that parking was now included within the scheme. It was also noted that the informative in relation to the legal agreement should have referenced 24 October 2026, and this would be corrected. A further informative would be added to advise that details of the parking provision would be required.

The location plan was shown, and members were reminded that the associated application for housing had previously been resolved to be granted by the committee. The site extended to approximately 5 hectares and lay to the south of the A352. The proposed SANG would provide footpaths, benches, a dog‑walking area and on‑site parking.

The landscape plan was presented, showing that the proposed landscaping remained largely as previously approved, with the addition of a parking area. Plans showing crossing areas on the A352 were presented, and it was confirmed that Dorset Council Highways were satisfied with the arrangements. A further plan demonstrated compliance with Ministry of Defence requirements in relation to the use of military vehicles on the A352 in relation to pedestrian crossing measures proposed.

Members were reminded that parking provision on site had been requested at the committee discussion in September 2025. The original proposal relied on parking located within 400 metres of the SANG, but the revised application now included five on‑site parking spaces, which met Dorset Council parking guidance. The spaces would be marked with timber posts, and their dimensions complied with the relevant standards. Details of the parking would be secured through the SANG management plan. The Highway Authority had raised no objection to the revised parking provision, subject to conditions, and Network Rail had also raised no objections subject to their asset management criteria.

It was considered that the provision of parking did not alter the principle of development and would not give rise to any highway safety concerns. It was not considered to result in any additional harm to the National Landscape, nor were there any further ecological or environmental impacts arising from the amendments. Additional conditions required to address the updates were shown to members.

Public representation was received from Adam Bennet, the agent for the application. He stated that the application had been brought back with the requested alterations to include parking on site. The development would help to mitigate impacts on nearby heathland and provide valuable public open space for use by the local community.

In response to members questions the Lead Project Officer confirmed that there was no proposed gate access into the car park, only into the SANG itself.

It was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, to grant the application with an additional condition requiring a height restriction of vehicles entering the car park and signage discouraging overnight parking.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

Variation of condition no.9 of PA 3/14/0016/OUT (Residential development of up to 630 dwellings, a new local centre, a replacement and extended Wimborne First School, public open space and new allotments together with new access, streets and other related infrastructure. (all matters reserved). Additional information rec'd 28.3.14, revised 9.6.15 as amended by plans rec'd 30th September 2014 and 22nd December 2014) to seek to remove the provision of traffic signals at the Allenview Road/Hanham Road junction to include pedestrian crossing facilities at the Allenview Road/Hanham Road junction - delete Criterion Xi (11) from C.9

The Lead Project Officer presented the application, which sought a variation of condition attached to a previous outline planning permission, specifically to remove Criterion 11 from Condition 9. It was noted that the Town Council had objected to the proposed variation.

The location of the site within Wimborne was shown, with further plans identifying the application site in relation to the Cranborne Road development to the north of the town. Members were shown an aerial photograph and site photographs illustrating the location of the proposed signal‑controlled junction. Reference was made to Policy WMC7, and the policy plan was displayed. The approved outline application plan was also shown. An aerial image illustrated the site as it currently stood, with the northern part of Phase 2 still under construction. It was confirmed that the First School within the development had been completed and was now occupied, the SANG had been completed, and the allotment site remained under construction.

The proposed variation was explained as the removal of the requirement to provide a signal‑controlled junction at the Allenview Road and Hanham Road junction. Consultation responses were summarised, including the objection from Wimborne Town Council.

In considering the principle of development, it was explained that the applicant had stated the crossing was no longer required or deliverable. Dorset Council Highways had been consulted and raised no objection to the removal of Criterion 11, confirming that the variation was acceptable. It was explained that there were constraints preventing the delivery of the crossing, including the proximity of the adjacent fire station and the fact that the associated school crossing patrol was no longer operational.

The approved travel plan referred to highway improvements at Allenview Road, and the Dorset Council Road Safety Officer had advised that, due to the low level of pedestrian movements, the location did not meet the criteria for a formal school crossing patrol.

Public representation was received from Rob O’Carroll, the applicant. He stated that the controlled crossing was no longer necessary due to the school patrol no longer being operational and could result in queuing vehicles blocking the fire station and increasing traffic accessing the existing roundabout.

In response to technical questions from members the Lead Project Officer provided the following responses:

·       The residential development associated with the application was mostly occupied and no viability information had been submitted as part of the application.

·       Moving the controlled crossing to a different location had not been explored and was not considered necessary by the Highways Authority.

·       Tactile paving and a crossing island were currently in place at the location of the uncontrolled crossing.

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

Decision: That the application be granted 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.