Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

An apology for absence was received from Cllr Pete Roper.

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 Bell declared an interest in item 8 due to having a family member with a property nearby and did not participate in that item.

Cllr Bawden declared that she was pre-determined on item 7 and spoke as the Ward Member.

Cllr Wheller declared that item 8 had been considered by Weymouth Town Council, however she had not participated in the item when it was considered and was not pre-determined.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 2025.

The minutes of the meeting held on 12 June 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 on Tuesday 15 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 and removal of existing buildings and structures and the construction of a new highway depot, including a single-storey office building, 3,000 tonne salt barn, and garages with associated parking and landscaping.

The Senior Planning Officer used plans and aerial photographs to identify the site and explained the proposal, relevant planning policies, and site context. It was explained that there was a range of alternative sites that were suitable for stopping in the nearby area for cars and that for HGV’s the nearest sites for stopping were in Honiton and Dorchester, however there was no policy in the Neighbourhood Plan that required provision of stopping areas for HGVs.

The proposed plans and layout were shown to members and the trees that were proposed to be removed and the replacement trees were highlighted on the plans. Landscape sections were provided, which indicated that the site would be largely screened by planting.

The main planning issues were summarised and officers considered that the application was acceptable subject to conditions.

Ms Tilley spoke as the agent for the application, noting that National Highways had given careful consideration to the location of the development and this site had been identified as the most suitable. National Highways recognised the loss of the rest facility, however noted the positive benefits of the proposal including the creation of jobs.

Belinda Bawden left the Council Chamber from 10:27 – 10:30 and did not participate in the rest of the item.

Cllr Hartmann, representing Symondsbury Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. He noted that the roads had previously been serviced from a depot in Honiton and did not see why this could not continue. The site lay outside of the Development Boundary and within the National Landscape and it was felt that the development would be more intrusive than the current picnic area.

In response to a question from one member, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that 5 jobs were likely to be rolled over from other sites, which would result in the creation of approximately 13-18 new full-time jobs.

Several members expressed concern over the loss of the rest facility; however, it was explained by the Senior Planning Officer that alternative sites had been considered by the applicant and the reasons for the applicant not pursuing them were listed in the report.

It was proposed by Cllr Kimber and seconded by Cllr Northam to grant the application.

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

Erection of 32.no dwellings with parking, demolition works, provision of public open space, public off-road parking, bio-diversity provisions and off-site flood storage measures and modify existing vehicular access.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application, which was for a development consisting of 32 dwellings and associated works. The existing buildings were identified on an aerial photograph of the site and photographs were also provided of the agricultural buildings and stone wall to the front of the site.

The proposed plans were shown to members, showing the design and scale of the proposed dwellings in each part of the site. It was explained that an attenuation basin was proposed to manage surface water run off and a dedicated play area and car park, to serve the nearby school, were to be built on site. 11 affordable dwellings could be secured through a Section 106 legal agreement.

The key planning issues were explained and it was considered that, while there were benefits of the proposal, it was unacceptable in terms of flood risk. The access to the site fell within flood zones 2 and 3 and the application failed the Sequential Test, as it was determined that there were other available alternative sites that would be at a lesser risk of flooding within the catchment area. Photographs of the site in a state of flooding were provided and the attenuation basin was proposed to assist the management of the current surface water flooding issues and this scheme had been approved by drainage engineers. 

Mr Smythe spoke as the applicant for the application, noting that a significant amount of time and money had been spent on the application so far and that there were significant benefits to the proposal, including the provision of 32 dwellings, which the applicant intended to provide as 100% affordable housing.

Mr Moir spoke as the agent for the application, noting that all but one issue had been resolved by working with the Planning Authority and the real-world harm of the flooding issue would be minimal.

The following answers were provided in response to members questions:

·         There had been a successful appeal on a planning application elsewhere in respect of the sequential test, however it wasn’t considered that this set a precedent, as there were different circumstances to this application, namely that the Local Authority did not have a five-year housing land supply in that case.

·         The applicant had not yet entered into a S106 legal agreement, as there were costs associated with doing so and the application was being recommended for refusal.

·         There was safe pedestrian access out of the site that would be available, should the road access be flooded.

·         The catchment area for the sequential test was a 3-mile radius and sites within that area were considered for alternative locations.

·         The Environment Agency does not apply the Sequential Test, which was why they did not comment on that aspect of the application.

Members had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, having asked technical questions of the planning officers. Members were generally in agreement that the scheme was well designed and made good use of a currently derelict site. They emphasised the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Erect a first floor extension to include balcony, front porch and associated works and landscaping (with variation of condition 2 of P/HOU/2023/00174 - to amend ridge height, include solar panels and additional roof light and amend landscaping scheme; and discharge condition 3 to agree external facing materials).

Cllr Monks and Cllr O’Leary left the meeting at 12:20

The meeting adjourned from 12:20 – 13:00.

Cllr Bawden moved to the public speaking section of the Council Chamber.

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application, which was to vary a condition on a previously approved application to change the ridge height on the dwelling from an increase of 1.3m to 1.6m.

The site within Lyme Regis was identified on a map and the nearby South West Coast Path and the entrance to the Spittles were highlighted. Photographs were provided of the other properties in the area, showing a variety of different styles in the area.

The proposed plans were shown to members and were overlaid against the original plans, to give a sense of the proposed change in the height of the dwelling, which was 300mm. Various photographs from the street and footpath looking towards the site were provided, which showed that the site would benefit from the screening of trees in the summer to minimise views of the site and it was not considered that there would be a significant impact on the landscape as a result of the proposed change.

The key planning issues were summarised and although it was recognised that the higher ridgeline would impact on the views of a neighbouring property, it was not considered to be overwhelmingly overbearing.

Mr Offord, a nearby resident, spoke in objection to the application, stating that the dwelling was too large and overly dominant for the area. He stated that the large size of dwelling detracted from the National Landscape and South West Coast Path and that the dwelling would be significantly larger than the other chalet bungalows in the area.

Mr Bastin spoke in support of the application, he explained that there had been a mistake with the original drawings, which resulted in the dwelling being built 300mm higher than intended and the higher ridge height was not intentional.

Ms Wells spoke as the agent for the application. She noted that the design and style of the dwelling had previously been approved and the application was just to vary the height of the dwelling by 300mm. It was explained that this had been a genuine mistake in the construction of the dwelling, however the higher ridge height was not a significant change to the previously approved application.

Cllr Bawden spoke as the Ward Member for Lyme and Charmouth. She explained that the Town Council had also objected to this application and that the comparison to the nearby former care home was misleading as the other chalet bungalows in the area were of a modest size and this dwelling would be completely out of character for the road. She disagreed with the views that the application wouldn’t result in harm to area.

Cllr Bell left the meeting at 13:31.

Cllr Bawden left the Council Chamber 13:38.

Several members asked for the photographs to be brought back so they could get a better idea of the appearance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Demolition of disused garages and the erection of a three bed domestic dwelling with associated parking and grounds.

Cllr Bawden and Cllr Monks returned to the Council Chamber at 13:56.

Cllr Christopher left the meeting at 13:57.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Senior Planning Officer identified the site and explained the proposal, which consisted of the demolition of 3 disused garages and the erection of a 3-bedroom, 1.5 storey dwelling, with associated parking and ground works.

Plans of the site and proposed dwelling were shown to members and the relative distances to the neighbouring properties were provided. Photographs of the site in its current condition were also shown, as well as photographs from the garden of a neighbouring property, to give members an indication of the level of impact that the new dwelling would have on neighbouring amenity.

The application was considered to be acceptable in terms of design and amenity and highways had confirmed they were happy with the two off-road parking spaces provided. It was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

Mr Le Lerre spoke in objection to the application, as a resident of one of the neighbouring properties, he expressed that although he had no objection to the principle of development, the proposed dwelling was too large for the size of the plot and would result in loss of outlook and loss of sunlight for the neighbouring properties.

Mr Twigg spoke on behalf of Mr Tufnail, who was a resident of one of the neighbouring properties. He stated that the dwelling would cover half of the garden boundary to the neighbouring property and that the dwelling would also have a very small garden and cramped parking spaces.

Ms Rasch spoke in support of the application. She stated that the application fell within the Defined Development Boundary and that no detrimental impact would be caused to the neighbouring properties, as the view from the dormer window would look out towards the front of the property and all other windows were on the ground floor.

The Vice-chair read out a statement on behalf of Cllr Webb, a Ward Member for Rodwell and Wyke, who could not be present at the meeting. She noted that there was significant concern amongst the local residents about the scale and mass of the dwelling. She also raised concerns about procedural process for the application and cited the lack of a noise impact assessment, and no tree survey or asbestos report.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified that a noise impact assessment wasn’t required following consultation with the applicant, the garages already had consent to be demolished and the tree officer had determined that an on-site survey wasn’t required.

The following responses were provided to members questions:

·         It was considered that there was sufficient outside amenity space for occupiers of the dwelling to use.

·         There were two roof lights at a high level in the dwelling that would not allow a view of the neighbouring properties and a single dormer window to the front of the property,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Erect extensions & alterations to Pavilion building including first floor extension with lift shaft, alterations to existing sun deck, replacement windows, external decorations & replacement roof coverings (with variation of condition 2 of planning permission WP/17/00218/FUL to enclose proposed balcony/terrace area).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application, which was for the variation of condition on an approved application, granted in 2017. The location of the site was identified on a map and aerial photograph. The approved elevation plan was shown in comparison to the proposed and the changes were highlighted to members. The sign was proposed to be rebuilt and raised and was already situated on site in the new location and it was no longer proposed for there to be a balcony and terrace area and the first-floor extension would instead extend across this area. Photographs of the building and the sign were shown.

The planning issues were summarised and the application was considered to be acceptable.

It was proposed by Cllr Northam and seconded by Cllr Wheller, 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 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.