Agenda and 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 Monks declared that he was pre-determined on item 5 and would leave the room for the debate and vote of that application.

Cllr Bawden declared that she was pre-determined on item 7 and would leave the room for the debate and vote of that application.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2026 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 24 February 2026.

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.

Continued use of land as a private residential Traveller site for sole use of the applicants and family, including use of the erected barn as a dayroom/workshop/store, 1 mobile home, 1 touring caravan and a mobile van (Revised description/additional information).

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application. The application site was identified on the location plan, together with adjoining land in the applicant’s ownership outlined in blue. An aerial view and the proposed site layout were shown. The elevations of the workshop building were presented, illustrating a natural‑stone structure with a pitched roof, timber cladding and natural slate roofing. The wider site included orchard planting, a new hedgerow, and seven zones forming part of an agreed woodland management plan.

A series of photographs were shown, including views from Meerhay Lane, public rights of way and the main workshop building. Images of the parking area, hedging, access onto the lane, as well as the main static mobile home and workshop were shown. A view taken from the south of the site during winter demonstrated the extent of vegetation cover. Additional images included the stream crossing and a view of the site from the footpath, along with photographs of the woodland proposed for enhancement through the application.

The Officer advised that the Council could not demonstrate a five‑year supply of traveller sites and that paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) therefore applied. The Senior Planning Officer referred to Policy SUS2 and explained that the site’s proximity to Beaminster meant it had reasonable access to a wide range of local facilities and services and was a sustainable location. The applicants’ traveller status had been examined in detail, including assessment of their historic travelling patterns. Information on their movements had been shared with the Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer, who had met with the applicants and was satisfied that they met the relevant definition. The Senior Planning Officer highlighted the clear and growing unmet need for traveller sites within the area.

It was explained that the materials proposed were subdued and used natural finishes appropriate to the National Landscape. Existing planting had already contributed to mitigation and the woodland management plan would deliver further improvements. The nearest dwelling lay approximately 40 metres from the site and officers concluded that there would be no overlooking or loss of amenity and there was no objection raised by Dorset Council Highways.

Public representation was received in opposition to the application from James Green, Katherine Haskins and John Steel KC. They raised concerns about the application including about setting a precedent in the area for allowing traveller site applications, the lack of alternative sites that had been explored and questioned the traveller status of the applicants.

Public representation in support of the application was received from Reverend John Herbert, Catherine Burton on behalf of Paula Tuff, Simon Ruston and Cllr Monks. Amongst their points of support, it was noted that the applicants traveller status was supported by the Council, Planning Inspectorate and the charity, Kushti Bok. In addition, it was mentioned that the applicants had not been offered an alternative permanent pitch by the Council and that even if they had, it would not impact the application. 

Cllr Monks left the Council Chamber  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Demolish existing building, erection of a new 56-bed reablement centre (Care Home with Nursing) with associated communal and supporting accommodation, landscaped gardens and car park.

Cllr Christopher left the meeting at 11:39.

Cllr Monks returned to the Council Chamber at 11:39.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a 56‑bed reablement centre. The site was shown on a map, situated south of the town centre and currently occupied by a disused purpose‑built care home. The site included large gardens and was bordered by West Bay Road and the A35, with Flood Lane providing access. Photographs of the existing building were displayed, showing predominantly lawned areas with a number of trees, as well as views from the A35.

The proposal involved demolishing the existing building, which was described as having little architectural merit and replacing it with a single new structure. The proposed building had been designed to appear as four separate elements, with pitched roofs over two storeys, linked by flat‑roofed sections. The design incorporated three internal lightwells, allowing light to enter from both sides of the building.

The proposed elevations and materials were presented, including the use of soft red brick and a mix of modern materials. The Lead Project Officer highlighted the proposed landscaping, the layout of the car park at the end of Flood Lane and the building footprint. Plans identified both retained trees and new planting. The existing access via Flood Lane would remain unchanged, with the car park intended primarily for staff and visitors. Artist’s impressions illustrated how the building would appear from the exterior.

In terms of the principle of development, it was explained that the site lay within Bridport and within the Defined Development Boundary (DDB). The proposal made use of previously developed land, a form of development strongly supported by the NPPF. There was no objection to the demolition of the existing building from statutory consultees. The vertical emphasis of window design and the use of soft red brick were considered appropriate and characteristic of other developments in the town.

It was noted that the only immediate neighbour was Gordon’s Court, and no concerns had been identified regarding overlooking. It was confirmed that the nearest listed buildings were located on the opposite side of the road and their setting was not considered to be harmed by the proposal. The biodiversity elements of the scheme were shown on the site plan. The application was considered acceptable in terms of highway matters and the existing access remained suitable. Several of the trees on site would be retained and where removals were necessary, higher‑quality replacements were proposed.

Regarding flood risk and drainage, a small corner of the site lay within Flood Zone 2. The applicant had undertaken a sequential test and found no suitable alternative sites. Surface‑water flood risk affected only a small part of the site in a 1‑in‑1000‑year event, and engineers had confirmed that this could be mitigated without difficulty.

Public representation was received from the applicant, Samuel Poole. He noted that the centre would provide short term recovery  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Erect replacement dwelling.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for the erection of a replacement dwelling, explaining that it followed an earlier proposal which had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.

An aerial view was shown identifying the existing dwelling and the site for the proposed replacement. It was explained that the property was accessed from Stile Lane, where a shared parking area was situated and lay within the grounds of Farnham House. The site constraints were outlined: it lay within the DDB, within the Dorset National Landscape and inside the Lyme Regis Conservation Area. The plan also highlighted areas vulnerable to coastal erosion and identified nearby listed buildings. Farnham House was described as a non‑designated heritage asset.

Elevations of the existing single-storey dwelling were shown. The previously refused scheme was shown alongside the current proposal for comparison. The earlier design had been considered visually prominent and harmful to the setting of Farnham House. The revised proposal would be constructed in natural stone with a natural slate roof and would include a significant reduction in glazing compared with the previous application. Two small roof lights were proposed at first‑floor level. The ridge height would increase by approximately 1.5 metres over the existing building.

Photographs of the site were presented, including the protected yew tree adjacent to the property. Further images showed the relationship between the existing dwelling, the modern addition of Flat 8 at Farnham House and Farnham House itself. It was explained that the proposed dwelling would feature dormers and materials similar to those used on Farnham House. Additional views were shown from the entrance to Farnham House and from the public footpath, illustrating the change in levels across the site. The modern Flat 8 was visible from these viewpoints, as was a shed within the application site. Wider views from the mini‑golf area were also shown.

In setting out the key planning issues, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the site lay within the DDB and that a replacement dwelling was acceptable in principle. Regarding the Dorset National Landscape and trees, the appeal inspector had found that development could be undertaken without harming the adjacent yew tree, subject to an appropriate construction plan. On heritage matters, the inspector had concluded that although the site was visible from nearby listed buildings, the proposal would not harm their historic open settings. In respect of the Conservation Area and the non‑designated heritage asset, it was advised that the revised scheme would result in less than substantial harm and any harm identified fell at the lower end of the "less than substantial" scale.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions, including the removal of permitted development rights for additional windows facing Farnham House, and the implementation of a construction method statement to ensure the protection of the yew tree and maintain ground stability.

Melanie Gradden spoke in opposition to the application. She noted that the revised scheme had not reduced in size or bulk from the previously  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

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.