Agenda item

To consider an application for the change of use of agricultural land to a secure fenced dog exercise area

That planning application 2024/0002/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was deemed that the site was in a sustainable location for the business in accordance with policies CP1 and CP3. That delegated authority be given to Officers to impose necessary planning conditions, to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 7 for, 2 against, 1 abstention

Change of use of agricultural land to a secure fenced dog exercise area

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the Officer had recommended refusal which was contrary to the Parish Council’s recommendation of approval.

The application related to a site outside defined settlement limits which has existing vehicular access to the highway and is opposite a small industrial estate. It is located in the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Risk Area and is approximately 1.2h of agricultural land. It was proposed to open the area no earlier than 7am and no later than 10pm during daylight hours. No outside lighting was proposed and users would book online A shelter and a dog waste collection bin would be provided.

The Officer’s Report concluded that the principle of development was unacceptable as the site was within the countryside, outside the development limits where development is strictly controlled. The proposal did not represent sustainable development and it would foster the growth in the need to travel by private car. In addition, the proposal was considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the rural area. The recommendation was therefore for refusal.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

The applicant was the only speaker. He made the following comments:

• Farming and the countryside will be on the national curriculum from September 2025.
• The income from the proposed enterprise will be used to cover the costs of the schools’ use of a classroom, hopefully to be approved at a future meeting, in which he will teach pupils free of charge about farming.
• The proposed gates and fence would not be visible from outside the property due to the high hedges and lower land surface.
• Visibility is fully acceptable by 2 other planning consultants and has already been approved by the committee for another application.
• The location of the site was chosen to be near to other developments and road, but as far away from houses and holiday lets as possible.
• The land is poor agricultural land, is very stoney and dries easily, making it ideal for this proposal.

In the discussion which followed Members made the following comments:

• Supports the application but hours of operation may need to be reduced.
• Dogs do not generally spend their walking time barking or causing a disturbance.
• There is a need for this business, particularly by residents of housing estates that do not have walkable access to countryside to exercise their dogs.

In response to questions raised, the proposed hours of operation were clarified as daylight only hours in winter and 7am to 10pm in summer. As there were no residential houses nearby, Officers did not feel it necessary to impose any noise management conditions, if approved.

As he felt it was a sustainable location for this type of business, it was proposed by Councillor Edric Hobbs and seconded by Councillor Tony Robbins to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 7 votes in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2024/0002/FUL be APPROVED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was deemed that the site was in a sustainable location for the business in accordance with policies CP1 and CP3. That delegated authority be given to Officers to impose necessary planning conditions, to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

Votes – 7 for, 2 against, 1 abstention