Agenda and draft minutes

To disclose any pecuniary, other registerable or non-registrable interest as set out in the adopted Code of Conduct. In making their disclosure 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 Belinda Bawden declared an interest to agenda item 8. It was agreed that she would speak as the Local Ward Member and would not take part in the debate or vote. 

Cllr Louie O’Leary declared an interest to agenda item 7 in which he was pre-determined. He spoke on behalf of one of the residents who was unable to attend and spoke as the Local Ward Member for the application. He left the room during the debate and vote.  

Cllr Peter Dickenson declared an interest in agenda item 7. He spoke as the Local Ward Member for that application and left the room during the debate and vote. He also declared an interest in agenda items 5 and 6. He left the room for the deliberation of those items.  

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 15^th July 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 Tuesday 08 September.

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.  

Removal of existing upper floor window and enlargement of opening in order to add new french doors giving access onto a new balcony area formed upon the existing bay window roof.

With the aid of a visual presentation, including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal. Members were shown the existing and proposed plans and elevations, and the relationship of the proposed balcony to neighbouring properties and the harbour. 

The Case Officer highlighted that the site was within a conservation area and flood zone, with the works being to a and was a Grade II listed building, in the immediate setting of two adjoining Grade II listed buildings and a Grade II* listed terrace. It was explained that the proposal involved the removal of an existing upper-floor window and that, whilst there would be a minor loss of historic fabric resulting in less than substantial in a low degree of harm, this would be outweighed by the public benefits. The proposal was considered compliant with Policy SUS2, would not appear out of place on the rear elevation, and would preserve the significance of surrounding heritage assets and the wider conservation area. Members were advised that there would be no adverse impact on residential amenity and that flood risk was not considered to be an issue. 

The officer recommendation was to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report. 

Public Participation 

There was no public participation. 

Members questions and comments 

• A question was raised as to whether the proposed windows were timber framed.  

• Clarification was sought regarding whether the rear elevation of the property would be visible from the quay.  

• A request was made for a visual image showing the view of the properties from the surrounding area.  

• A comment was made that the proposal represented a positive enhancement to the business without adversely affecting the historic value of the houses. 

• Cllr Wheller expressed concern regarding a perceived lack of consistency in the approach taken to determining similar applications. 

• the area was attractive and characterised by slight variations in the appearance of properties.  

• It was noted that the Council had a duty to preserve and protect the character and appearance of the area.    

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 Belinda Bawden, and seconded by Cllr Paul Kimber, subject to conditions set out in the officer report. 

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out in Section 15 of the officer’s report. 

Internal and external alteration to facilitate the removal of existing upper floor window and enlargement of opening in order to add new French doors giving access onto a new balcony area formed upon the existing bay window roof.

Public Participation 

There was no public participation. 

Members questions and comments 

There were no technical 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 Craig Monks, and seconded by Cllr Paul Kimber, subject to conditions set out in the officer report.  

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out in Section 15 of the officer’s report. 

Cllr Peter Dickenson returned at 10:25 

Removal of a telecommunications mast and associated structures and installation of bases for the siting of static holiday caravans with decking and associated access, landscaping, drainage and other related infrastructure works.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application with the aid of plans, aerial photographs and visualisations. Members were shown the application site within Weymouth Bay Holiday Park and were advised of its relationship to nearby heritage and environmental designations, including the Dorset National Landscape and the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.  

The proposal sought full planning permission for 241 holiday caravans across four areas of the site, together with associated infrastructure including access roads, footpaths, landscaping, sustainable drainage measures, an attenuation basin, the relocation of five existing caravans and the removal of a telecommunications mast. Access would be provided from the existing holiday park. 

Members were informed that the principle of development was considered acceptable under Policy ECON7, which supported the expansion of existing holiday parks. An Environmental Impact Assessment had been undertaken and identified a range of impacts together with mitigation measures. 

The Officer explained that the principal considerations were landscape and visual impact, effects on the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and heritage assets, ecology, flood risk, highways and neighbouring amenity. Whilst the development would introduce additional built form into the landscape and result in a degree of harm to landscape character, the impact was assessed as being at the lower end of the scale and would reduce over time as the proposed landscaping matured. A degree of less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets and the World Heritage Site was also identified. 

Ecological impacts, including habitat loss and potential recreational pressure on designated sites, were considered capable of mitigation through habitat creation, wildlife corridor measures, designated walking routes and other ecological enhancements. Flood risk and drainage matters were also considered acceptable, subject to mitigation and the proposed drainage strategy. 

Members were advised that the Highway Authority had raised no objection, subject to conditions and contributions towards local transport improvements. The proposal would alter the outlook from some neighbouring properties, particularly those at Forehill Close, but was not considered to result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity. 

In assessing the planning balance, the Officer noted that no statutory consultees had objected to the application. Significant weight was afforded to the economic benefits of the proposal, including investment, employment opportunities, support for the tourism economy and improvements to public access and sustainable transport infrastructure. 

The Officer concluded that, on balance, the benefits of the scheme outweighed the identified harms and recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report. 

Public Participation 

Mr J Skinner’s statement was read out by the Local Ward Member, who was unable to attend and objected to the application. He raised concerns regarding the impact of additional caravans on neighbouring properties, including loss of privacy, outlook and residential amenity, as well as increased noise, light pollution and traffic. Concerns were also expressed regarding residents’ wellbeing, safety, and potential impacts on local wildlife. He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

Helen Ashby-Ridgway, speaking as agent, supported the application. She stated that the proposal had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

Construction of extension to existing raised platform, including detachable shade canopy structure.

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site plans, elevations, 3D images, aerial photography and site photographs, the Case Officer identified the application site and outlined the proposed development. Members were guided through the relevant planning history and policies applicable to the determination of the application. 

The Case Officer identified the site location and highlighted the numerous listed buildings and heritage assets situated within the surrounding area. Existing plans were presented, including the current floor and roof layouts and the existing south, west, north and east elevations. A 3D image of the existing platform was also shown to provide context. 

Members were presented with the proposed site layout, which included an extension towards the rear of the site and a modest increase in the height of the platform. It was explained that the space beneath the extended structure was intended for boat storage. Proposed floor plans, elevations and details of the detachable canopy sails were also displayed. Additional 3D visualisations demonstrated the appearance of the completed development, together with proposed roof plans showing the structure both with and without the canopy sails. 

Google Earth imagery was used to illustrate the wider setting of the site, including the beach and harbour. Photographs taken from around the harbour identified the surrounding buildings and neighbouring catering establishments, whilst further images showed views from the harbour frontage, access arrangements to the site and conditions within the site itself. 

The Case Officer advised Members that the premises operated under a premises licence and drew attention to the key planning considerations. It was explained that the proposal would result in moderate harm to designated heritage assets and that the identified public benefits were not sufficient to outweigh that harm. Whilst there were acknowledged economic benefits associated with the proposal, officers considered that the development would have a harmful impact on residential amenity. 

Members were advised that no adverse impacts had been identified in relation to highways, ecology, flood risk or coastal risk management matters. 

Having assessed the proposal against the relevant development plan policies and material considerations, the Case Officer confirmed that the officer recommendation was to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in Section 17 of the report. 

In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.  

Public Participation 

Matthew Dalton-Aram, speaking as agent, stated that the report did not adequately demonstrate harm arising from the proposal and argued that any impact would be limited. He noted the mixed-use harbour setting and that the platform was present when Cobb House was listed. He highlighted that the sailing club was a volunteer-run, non-profit organisation with around 400 members that hosted Lyme Regis Sea School, providing social, educational and economic benefits to the community. He considered that any limited harm was outweighed by the significant public benefits of the proposal and noted that the canopy was removable if required. He requested that the committee reconsider the officer recommendation and grant.  

Councillor Philip May, speaking on behalf of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

Change of use of land and buildings from vehicle maintenance and electricity depots to Highways depot with siting of shipping containers for storage purposes and electric vehicle charging points.

The Case Officer presented the application using plans, aerial photography and site photographs. Members were advised that the site was located within the Weymouth Town Centre Strategy area, with residential properties to the north and west and the former gas works site to the south. 

The proposal sought the relocation of the existing highways depot from Lynch Lane and the change of use of the site and building to a sui generis highways maintenance depot. Members were informed of the site's planning history, including the grant of permission for 23 dwellings in October 2021. 

The key planning considerations were the principle of development, flood risk and drainage. The Officer advised that a flood evacuation plan would be secured by condition. It was noted that the site already had an industrial character and, as no physical alterations were proposed, no harm would arise to the character and appearance of the area. No objections had been raised on highways grounds, with no concerns identified in relation to access, parking provision or highway safety. 

Having assessed the proposal against relevant planning policies, the Officer recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report. 

Public Participation 

There was no public participation. 

Members questions and comments 

• Queried whether there should be a proposed fixed period of use and sought clarification on what consultation had taken place with the Council’s regeneration team 

• Members referred to the access arrangements set out in Condition 7 and requested that additional wording, as suggested by Councillor Kimber, be considered. 

• Raised questions regarding contaminated land matters and sought confirmation that no additional contaminated land conditions would be imposed. 

• Members discussed flood mitigation measures, with Councillor Bawden suggesting the inclusion of permeable surfacing as part of the scheme. 

• Queried the comments within the report relating to public benefits arising from the development. 

• Members expressed support for the proposal, noting that relocation to the new site would make use of Council-owned land and could reduce costs, whilst highlighting the importance of ensuring the development was future-proofed and did not result in substantial harm. 

• Sought clarification as to whether the relocation of the site would result in financial savings for the 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 Kate Wheller, and seconded by Cllr Louie O’Leary, subject to conditions set out in the officer report and an amendment to condition no. 7 to allow for use of the site in the event of an emergency. 

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 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 is no scheduled exempt business.

There was no exempt business