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 03 September 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 03 September 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 22 September 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.

Retention of a stable/rural building. Siting of a mobile home to be used as a temporary rural worker’s dwelling with sheds for ancillary residential storage. Change of use of land to a mixed agricultural and alpaca trekking enterprise.

Application P/FUL/2024/06189 was moved to the front of the agenda and was the first application to be considered, due to officer availability.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, it was explained that the application had been brought back to committee for determination, having previously been deferred, with additional details about the alpaca trekking business and proposed cladding on the mobile home.

Various photographs of the application site were shown, including views of the mobile home from the road, the nearby St Hubert’s Church and an aerial photograph of the site.

It was explained that the applicant was currently in the process of obtaining a lease to carry out trekking on the old railway line and the Lease Officer had confirmed that the Council was intending to grant permission, however there was also enough room within the site to conduct alpaca trekking if the lease wasn’t granted.

The development was considered acceptable within the Green Belt as the Council’s Land Consultant had confirmed that there was a justified need for a rural worker’s dwelling on the site to support the business which was a very special circumstance. It was considered that the buildings had an appropriate rural appearance and there was screening in place, so impact on the landscape was limited. A borehole test had been carried out by the applicant and there was not a high risk of ground water flooding. 

The applicant, Mr Cooper, spoke in support of the application, noting that there had been no objections on flooding or highways grounds. While the previous concerns over cladding and the trekking route had now been resolved.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that there was currently a proposed condition that required cladding for the mobile home, as officers considered that it was appropriate in the interests of visual amenity.

In response to questions from members the Senior Planning Officer provided the following responses:

·       The proposed cladding would be physically attached to the mobile home.

·       Officers recognised that there would be some impact on the landscape, however it would be limited due to the nature of the business.

·       Usage of chemicals on the land associated with the keeping of livestock wasn’t a planning consideration.

·       The signs featured in the photographs provided were located on the application site, not the public 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, it was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Morgan, that the application be granted, with the removal of the condition requiring the mobile home to be clad as this was not judged to be necessary.

Decision: That the application be granted, subject to conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

Redevelopment for 48 Dwellinghouses & Village Hall including access improvements, parking & landscaping.

The meeting adjourned 10:40 – 10:45.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application and updated members that the wording had been altered in the report to provide flexibility for the applicant on the number of dwellings that they would be able to build and the Senior Tree Officer had changed their comment to no objection, subject to a legal agreement.

A location plan and aerial photograph were provided and the site constraints listed, including a Tree Protection Order. The Tree Officer had inspected the site and had no objections.

An indicative layout of the site was provided, showing the areas of housing and open space, as well as an exclusion zone to protect the trees on site. In the indicative plan there were several plots that incorporated protected trees, so an informative note was included to suggest that trees be excluded from private gardens at the Reserved Matters stage. The proposal also included a community hall for East Stoke, following the closure of the previous community hall in 2008.

The Transport Development Liaison Manager covered the highways aspects of the application. It was explained that the primary access would be to the west of the site and there would be an additional emergency access. Visibility splays had demonstrated that vehicles could access and leave the site safely, there would be some additional vehicle movements, however these were considered acceptable.

The Lead Project Officer explained that an attenuation basin was included in the proposal and details about foul drainage were to be set out in the section 106 legal agreement.

It was noted that the proposal was contrary to the Purbeck Local Plan as it was outside of a settlement boundary, however the Council’s housing land supply was set to fall below the necessary 5 years of supply in November and so significant weighting was given to the provision of housing. Officers also considered that the scheme made East Stoke a more sustainable location through the provision of a community hall.

The agent for the application, Mr Bennett, spoke in support of the application. He noted that the site was already in residential use and the proposal would include 19 affordable homes and a village hall, that would provide a community benefit.

Cllr Sowry-House read out a statement on behalf of the Ward Member, Cllr Wilson. He stated that he supported the application, however asked that the community hall be delivered at the earliest stage of development, in the interests of the local community.

In response to public speakers, the Lead Project Officer clarified that it was included in the S106 legal agreement, that the community hall be delivered before the housing.

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

·       Should the roads on the development remain with the developer then they would be advised to have a suitable speed limit for the roads.

·       The road outside of the development was 40-mph leading into a 50-mph zone.

·       The most important trees had been identified on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

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

The Lead Project 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 existing lay-bys adjacent to the site could accommodate at least 5 cars.

Officers considered that there was adequate parking for the SANG for its purpose in serving the proposed residential development at the Binnegar Hall site and although it was located further away from the housing development than the guidance recommended, it was only by 10m and so was considered an acceptable distance. There was access to the SANG from the development via a crossing point, which complied with guidelines and had been subject to an independent road safety audit.

Mr Bennett, the agent for the application, spoke in support of the scheme. He noted that it would provide important community benefits and mitigate against any impact on the heathland.

Cllr Sowry-House read out a statement on behalf of Cllr Wilson, he stated that he had concerns over the 50-mph speed limit on the road leading to the SANG and also over the usage of the road by Ministry of Defence vehicles and asked for assurances on the safety of these vehicles to use the roads.

Officers provided the following responses to questions from members:

·       The Heathlands Planning Framework was guidance rather than policy and was applied dependant on individual site circumstances.

·       The Heathland Mitigation Officer considered that there was no need for parking on site. Users of the SANG who parked in the lay-bys would need to be mindful when taking their dogs from their cars to the site.

·       The community hall car park would serve as additional parking for the SANG, but the 5 spaces in the lay-bys identified were considered to be sufficient, as it met the guidance.

·       There wasn’t a requirement for the SANG to include a particular variety of different landscapes.

·       Ongoing maintenance of the SANG was to be undertaken by a management company in perpetuity.

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, it was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Morgan, that the application be granted, subject to a condition to expand the eastern lay-by to accommodate a minimum of 6 cars, as it was felt that there needed to be sufficient parking provision if users of the SANG were expected to drive to the site.

The meeting adjourned 13:33 – 13:43.

Following an adjournment the proposal to grant approval was withdrawn, due to uncertainty over whether the additional condition requiring increased parking in the eastern lay-by could be accommodated.

It was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Goringe, that the application be deferred, to allow officers and the applicant to explore the possibility of adding additional parking inside the application site.

Decision: That the application be deferred to allow for changes to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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 3 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.