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 Duncan Sowry-House declared an interest to agenda item 6, in which he had declared that he was the Local Ward Member and had been in discussion with residents. Therefore, it was agreed that he would not take part in the debate or vote but would speak as the Local Ward Member.  

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 April 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 30^th April 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 02 June 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.

Demolition of existing built form and the erection of three dwellinghouses with associated parking and landscaping. As amended by plan received 14.3.25 to obscure glaze part of bedroom window on rear elevation and insert additional first floor window on NE elevation.

The Case Officer used plans and aerial photographs to identify the site and explained the proposal, relevant planning policies, and site context. The proposed dwellings featured traditional design elements including brick walls, tiled roofs, inset windows, and chimney detailing. Visuals demonstrated that the design aligned with the surrounding street scene. The principle of development was considered acceptable. The scale, design, and spacing were appropriate and caused no harm to local character. The proposal complied with the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan (CED)Policy LN2 by achieving suitable density and providing adequate internal and external amenity space in accordance with national standards. Separation distances, including 24m to the northwest, were deemed sufficient. Obscure glazing, which was included in Conditions 12 & 13, were also proposed to mitigate overlooking.  The landscaping condition was amended to include a requirement to erect 1.8m high close-boarded fencing on the site’s boundary with 45 Woolsbridge road.

Flood risk was assessed as low based on site-specific groundwater monitoring. A surface water management strategy was proposed and accepted by the Council’s drainage engineers, meeting the requirements of CED Policy ME6 and Section 14 of the NPPF. Nine on-site parking spaces were provided, and any additional on-street parking would serve as traffic calming. No protected trees were present, and the scheme maintained an appropriate relationship with surrounding vegetation, in line with CED Policy HE2. The ecological impact on Dorset Heathlands and the New Forest Special Conservation Area was acknowledged and the officer recommendation relied on completion a planning obligation in this respect. The proposal also addressed identified national and local housing needs.

Public Participation

Roy Burgess objected to the proposal, citing the Parish Council’s concerns about overdevelopment in an area largely comprised of bungalows. He raised concerns about garages positioned near the boundary, the need for boundary screening and the potential impact of construction on roots of existing cherry and laurel trees growing close to the site boundary. While not opposed to development of the plot, he considered a bungalow more appropriate and suggested modifications were needed.

Giles Moir, on behalf of Ashley Limited, thanked the Committee and noted close collaboration with Case Officers, including pre-application advice. He highlighted the site’s urban location and the contribution the proposal would make toward Dorset’s housing need, particularly for family homes. The agent emphasised the scheme’s quick delivery, quality chalet-style design, adequate separation distances, and off-street parking. He acknowledged the proposed obscure glazing condition and noted no objections apart from the Parish Council. He expressed hope for the Committee’s support.

Members questions and comments

• Members emphasised the importance of protecting tree and hedge roots during construction and requested an informative note to ensure appropriate measures were taken
• Clarification was sought on the dimensions of the proposed garages.
• Members thanked the Case Officer for a comprehensive report, noting the site had remained vacant and neglected for several years. They welcomed the revised scheme proposing three dwellings, which were considered to complement the properties opposite.
• Additional planning conditions were requested by way of an amendment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Demolish existing conservatory and garage/outbuilding, erect new garage/outbuilding and internal alterations.

Erect 4no detached dwellings with associated garages, access and landscaping.

The Case 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 tree felling, and site clearance had occurred prior to the application; while the trees were not protected, they contributed to the character of the area. Pre-application advice had been sought, during which officers confirmed the principle of development was acceptable, though three-bedroom units were encouraged to meet need identified by the strategic housing market assessment (SHMA).

The submitted site plan considered objections from the Town Council and residents. It included a robust planting scheme with established trees to provide a transitional buffer between rural and developed land. While the Town Council identified a need for two-three-bedroom homes, the generous unit sizes and site context justified a departure from that guidance. Proposed materials and finishes were detailed, with finished floor levels and ridge heights slightly higher than existing dwellings. A site section demonstrated the relationship between Unit 4 and Candy’s Close, showing a similar design and roof profile to avoid any overbearing impact. No loss of sunlight was identified.

A separation of approximately 10m between existing and proposed dwellings was confirmed, supported by photographic evidence. Landscaping and boundary fencing formed a key part of the scheme. Existing floor plans and elevations of 113 Wimborne Road were presented. The Highways Team raised no concerns, noting the inclusion of a raised traffic calming platform and reliance on garage and driveway parking, with additional visitor spaces provided. The site was considered sustainably located within the settlement boundary. No significant harm was identified, and the recommendation was for approval, subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Ben Bolton, a local resident, objected to the proposal, stating the ecological report incorrectly claimed the site clearance was undertaken by the previous owner, when it was carried out by the developers. He raised concerns over the lack of a rural survey and limited access to sustainable transport, noting few local amenities and a reliance on cars, particularly for elderly residents and families with young children. He described the access lane to Wimborne Road as narrow and unsafe, referencing two previous accidents. He also cited flood risk due to high groundwater levels. Finally, he criticised the way the site was cleared, noting trees were destroyed without warning or regard for nearby families, raising concerns about the developer’s future conduct and lack of due diligence.

Jackie Bonham thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak. She described the site as a previously thriving habitat, which had been suddenly cleared, causing damage. She noted the presence of protected and priority species, including orchids and bats, and stated that actions taken had resulted in habitat loss. Ms. Bonham emphasised the need to prioritise 2- and 3-bedroom homes and stressed that new developments must respect the character of the area. She urged officers to enforce biodiversity net gain and expressed that developers should be held accountable for the loss of mature trees, which she described as more than  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Partially demolish the existing storage building and erect one dwelling with associated access and parking, including the temporary siting of a static caravan at the site (to be occupied by the applicant during the construction phase)

The Case Officer, supported by a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. The site was located within the Green Belt. The principle of development was considered acceptable under infill provisions and the site plan showed use of the existing access. Proposed elevations and separation distances demonstrated there would be no harmful overlooking, including from the proposed rear balcony, due to sufficient spacing. It was noted that the southern part of the site could be susceptible to high groundwater levels. The site was well-treed, and a 30-year biodiversity management plan was proposed to ensure appropriate enhancement and maintenance of biodiversity net gain. The location's sustainability was assessed with reference to Policy KS2. Although within the Green Belt, the site’s proximity to the settlement and the current housing land supply position were considered. Officers concluded there were no grounds to warrant refusal.

Public Participation

Chris Miell a chartered town planner and former planning Inspector with over 10 years’ experience, speaking as agent on the application addressed objections regarding flooding and Green Belt. He noted no public objections and described the proposal as modest infill development near Colehill, improving existing land use. The massing and design were consistent with the area and similar developments. He confirmed no flood risk and that a sequential test was unnecessary. He found no planning reasons to refuse and no conflict with the NPPF, urging the Committee to approve in line with officer recommendations.

Members questions and comments

• Sought clarification on whether outbuildings included garden sheds.
• Expressed support for the proposed ground treatment, woodland management plan, and inclusion of a pond, describing it as a sensible, self-contained approach.
• Noted that infilling in the Green Belt would complete the village.
• Referred to Condition 11 concerning the temporary caravan.
• Requested clarification on Condition 6 regarding cellular confinement.

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 Toni Coombs, and seconded by Cllr David Morgan, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

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

Demolish existing bungalow and erect replacement dwelling.

The Case Officer, supported by plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies. The site was located just south of the defined settlement boundary and involved the replacement of a long-vacant dwelling. Access was via a private drive, with open fields to the south. The site was visible from several public rights of way, and the removal of trees had increased visibility of the existing structure. Two adjacent trees were noted on neighbouring land.

The site context plan and history of refused applications were presented, demonstrating how previous reasons for refusal had been addressed. The proposed site plan reflected pre-application advice and included a reduced footprint. Proposed elevations were compared with the previously refused scheme. Materials and the addition of rear-facing solar panels were highlighted. The Highway Engineer raised no objections, and no harm to residential amenity was identified. Drainage had been a key concern, and the officer outlined the measures taken to resolve this. The application was for a self-build dwelling. Biodiversity replacement measures had been secured through an ecological assessment.

Public Participation

Giles Moir stated the applicants were not commercial developers but building a family home. He noted refusal related to biodiversity details, not planning principle. Pre-application advice led to reduced scale and use of materials reflecting the area’s character. He raised no objection, subject to conditions. Tree felling occurred before the applicants owned the site; the current scheme included new tree planting and solar panels. Surface water disposal and drainage were addressed. He concluded the proposal enhanced the area and provided a new home for the applicants.

Members questions and comments

• Noted the applicant had collaborated and sought professional advice, taking comments on board.
• Welcomed the inclusion of water butts in the proposal.
• Identified surface water as the only issue, but acknowledged the report was comprehensive.
• Commended planning officers for their efforts in producing a more suitable application.
• Referenced concerns previously raised by the Parish Council.

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 Andy Skeats, and seconded by Cllr Beryl Ezzard, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant subject to a s106, either Recommendation

A) Grant, subject to the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the Legal Services manager to secure the following: (i) The Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) self-build exemption and (ii) A payment of £4,826 as financial compensation for the loss of trees and scrub habitat on the site.

Or

B) REFUSE permission for the reasons set out within the report if the agreement was not completed by 4 February 2026 or such extended time as agreed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Erect single garage as extension to existing outbuilding over car parking space.

The Case Officer, using plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. The site was located near the centre of Wareham. The proposal involved the erection of a single garage with access from the rear. Site photographs showed the relationship to an existing large garage on the neighbouring property. Existing and proposed plans were presented, noting that views were largely screened by a boundary wall, though the eastern elevation would be partially visible from New Road. The proposed garage was modest in scale, set back from the boundary, and not considered to cause harm to neighbouring amenity.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Noted no objections were received; site notices were posted.
• Confirmed no comments were received from the local ward member.
• Local ward member confirmed she had no objections.

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 Duncan Sowry-House, and seconded by Cllr Spencer Flower, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

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

Installation of electronic bollards to car park.

Electric supply from Allendale House to Bollards.

The Case Officer, with the aid of plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the dual application and relevant planning policies. The site was accessed via Hanham Road and located within the Wimborne Conservation Area and is a Grade II listed building. No changes were proposed to existing parking arrangements. The proposal included the installation of two bollards opposite a turning circle to regulate access to a private car park for authorised users only, via a mobile app Photographs were presented showing the car park and surrounding context. No objections were received. The application also proposed the rebuilding of a red brick boundary wall to the west of the site, forming part of the landscape boundary. Recycled bricks were to be used to match the existing character. Additional photographs illustrated the current condition and design context.

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Raised issue regarding use of mobile phone app while driving.
• Noted matter related to a private highway.

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 Toni Coombs, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant permission for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

Installation of electronic bollards to car park

Electric supply from Allendale House to Bollards.

Rebuild Wall.

The Case Officer, with the aid of plans and aerial photographs, identified the site and outlined the dual application and relevant planning policies. The site was accessed via Hanham Road and located within the Wimborne Conservation Area.  No changes were proposed to existing parking arrangements. The proposal included the installation of two bollards opposite a turning circle to regulate access to a private car park for authorised users only, via  a mobile app Photographs were presented showing the car park and surrounding context. No objections were received. The application also proposed the rebuilding of a red brick boundary wall to the west of the site, forming part of the landscape boundary. Recycled bricks were to be used to match the existing character. Additional photographs illustrated the current condition and design context

Public Participation

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

There were no questions or comments.

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 Toni Coombs, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Decision: To grant permission for the reasons set out in 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.