Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs Rory Major, Barrie Cooper and Les Fry.

To disclose any pecuniary, other registerable or non-registerable interests 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.

No declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests were made at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2026.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30^th July 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 31^st July 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.

Erection of up to 50 no. dwellings, including provision of public open space, drainage & ancillary works (outline application to determine access only).

The Lead Project Officer presented the application using plans, aerial photographs and site images, and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. Members were advised that the Council's October 2025 five-year housing land supply statement identified a significant shortfall, confirming the Council can only demonstrate a deliverable housing supply that is equivalent to 2.53 years supply.

The site was located approximately 1 km from the town centre in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities. Landscape visualisations demonstrated that proposed planting and landscaping would soften views of the development over time, resulting in limited visual impact, including from the Trailway. Overall effects of the development on receptors would be minor or moderate adverse rather than major adverse (significant). The development would not adversely affect the Dorset National Landscape.

Members were informed that flood risk was low and that the proposed drainage strategy included attenuation basins and permeable paving which had been accepted by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Foul drainage would connect to the existing sewer on Manston Road via a pumping station on site. There would be no harm to heritage assets. The scheme would provide two access points with pedestrian crossing facilities and was not considered to raise highway safety concerns. Although some habitat and hedgerow loss would occur, the proposal would deliver biodiversity enhancements and net gain. The root protection area of protected Black Poplar trees could be affected but conditions could be imposed to determine the presence or absence of any tree roots.​The site was not classified as best and most versatile agricultural land.

Members were advised that, in terms of the planning balance, weighing against the proposal was the conflict with the spatial strategy, however only limited weight could be given to this given the Council’s housing land supply position. Weighing significantly in favour would be the provision of 50 dwellings, including affordable housing, as well as public open space and infrastructure contributions secured by legal agreement. Economic benefits would also arise through construction activity and local spending.

The Lead Project Officer concluded that there were no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

Public Participation

Public – Objection

Richard Nye

He explained to the Committee that he had lived on Manston Road for approximately 25 years and raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact of the proposed development on highway safety and the operation of Manston Road. Particular concern was expressed regarding the proposed principal access serving 50 dwellings. He highlighted that existing residential driveways were located opposite the proposed junction, together with a footpath providing access to the recreation ground.

Concerns were raised that vehicle movements associated with the development, existing residential traffic, pedestrians and crossing points would all be concentrated within a limited section of road and that residents were unclear whether the combined impact of these movements had been fully assessed.

He also raised concerns regarding the proposed secondary access and pedestrian crossing opposite an entrance to the Rixon Recreation Ground.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Erection of 19no. dwellings & amenity space with access from Lower Street.

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site location plans, aerial photographs, proposed layouts and site photographs, the Case Officer identified the application site and outlined the proposed development, relevant planning history, and applicable planning policies.

Members were advised that housing targets had increased significantly since the previous appeal decision and that the site, although outside the settlement boundary, was considered to be in a sustainable location.

The site forms Phase 2 of a wider development, with Phase 1 already approved and under construction. Previous appeal concerns relating to layout, pedestrian safety, parking arrangements and the attenuation pond had been addressed through revisions to the scheme, including a dedicated footway, amended parking layout and clearer drainage proposals.

Members were advised that the development would provide a mix of affordable and market housing, with design and scale reflecting local character. Officers considered that impacts on the National Landscape, heritage assets and the Conservation Area would be limited.

Ecological enhancements, including biodiversity net gain, landscape planting, hedgerow translocation, bat and bird features, were proposed. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, with a low risk of flooding, and the dwellings would incorporate air source heat pumps.

The Case Officer concluded that the concerns raised in relation to the previous scheme had been satisfactorily addressed and recommended approval, subject to conditions.

Public Participation

Public Objection

Cllr George Norris did not attend the meeting.

Applicant/Agent

Matthew Holmes (Agent)

Mr Holmes advised that the application had been submitted following previous applications and that the plans had been amended during the course of the application in response to feedback received. He welcomed the officer recommendation for approval and stated that the scheme had been carefully designed to fit with the character of the area.

He explained that the proposed buildings were of a traditional design and provided a mix of dwelling sizes. Landscaping was proposed for the front and rear gardens together with an area of green space on the western edge of the site. The scheme had also been designed to take account of the site's biodiversity interests.

Mr Holmes stated that the relevant Council policy criteria had been considered throughout the design process. All dwellings would meet or exceed the minimum national space standards and would benefit from appropriately sized rear gardens. He added that the proposed density of development was comparable to that of surrounding properties.

Reference was made to the officer’s report, which concluded that the proposals were acceptable in terms of design and visual impact and would provide a suitable living environment for future residents. He further noted that the proposed dwellings were appropriately separated from neighbouring properties and that the relationship between existing and proposed homes had been carefully planned.

Mr Holmes reminded Members that the proposal was unchanged from the previous application that had been determined at appeal. He stated that the appeal decision had confirmed that the development was acceptable in terms of design, heritage and drainage considerations and that the site represented an appropriate location for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

Modification of S106 Deed of Variation dated 2nd April 2024 to remove Clause 2.8 under Schedule 2 which reads 'no more than 30% of the Intermediate Units shall be Discounted Market Units'.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members.

The application was to consider the modification of S106 legal agreement on Gillingham Park Farm Deed of Variation dated 2^nd April 2024 to remove Clause 2.8 under schedule 2 which reads ‘no more than 30% of the intermediate units shall be discounted market units’.

There was no public participation.

Members questions and comments

• Members discussed the proposed affordable housing arrangements and the practical challenges associated with delivery.
• A Member expressed concern that it was unfortunate for prospective residents if affordable housing could not be delivered in its preferred form and sought clarification on whether the proposed discounted market housing units would remain affordable in perpetuity.
• Members acknowledged the challenging market conditions currently facing affordable housing providers. It was noted that the business model for registered providers had become increasingly difficult in recent years and that no affordable housing provider had been secured for the scheme.
• Further comments were made supporting the provision of affordable housing wherever possible. However, Members recognised the difficulties currently affecting the sector and welcomed efforts to identify an alternative mechanism for delivering more affordable homes as part of the development.

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 planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Ridout.

Decision: To grant planning permission and approve the modification of the agreement.

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.