Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Change of use of agricultural land to secure dog walking/exercise area and associated works, including car parking area and improved access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

37.14        This application was for change of use of agricultural land to a secure dog walking/exercise area and associated works, including car parking area and improved access.

37.15        The Planning Officer advised that the field was situated on the west side of Hucclecote Lane and approximately 200 metres to the south of the settlement of Churchdown within designated Green Belt land.  The field had a road frontage to Hucclecote Lane of approximately 100 metres which included an existing field access.  The overall site area was 1.57 hectares.  The field was formerly agricultural use and was securely fenced with wire mesh secured to timber posts at three metre intervals around the boundary.  There were some mature trees and hedgerow on the road frontage and around its perimeter.  To the north of the site was a dwelling house, Four Gables, to the east – and on the other side of Hucclecote Lane – was a small woodland and a Severn Trent Water pumping station and the grounds of Chosen Hill House lay to the south.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees subject to conditions and it was considered that the proposal would not result in any undue harm as outlined in the Committee report, therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

37.16        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated there were a number of fundamental reasons why this retrospective application should be refused - loss of agricultural land should be resisted; Policy CHIN 13 should be upheld to preserve the views; the local amenity would be adversely affected due to the noise and greatly increased activity that would take place in contravention of Joint Core Strategy Policy SD4 and Policy SD14 – the opening times proposed were of little comfort and he stressed the close proximity of the field to adjacent residents some 10 metres away; the car park when fenced with 1.8 metre wire mesh would be more intrusive than it was currently which contravened Policy CHIN 13; Gloucestershire County Council had given no consideration to the increased water run-off from the site – there was a history of safety problems concerning run-off that had been successfully addressed but which had now returned; the Council’s Tree Officer had stated that that Oak trees, which were protected by Tree Preservation Orders, had already been impacted which conflicted with Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policy LAN1; and, the Environmental Health Officer had originally recommended a Noise Management Plan as one of three conditions which would have required sign-off by the Local Planning Authority - there was no indication why this was no longer included.  The local resident urged Members to consider the impact the proposal would have and to refuse the application.  If Members could not refuse the application, it should be within their remit to insist on more stringent conditions which he suggested should include: the car park being relocated further from the neighbours and away from the Oak trees with the relocation of the entrance to give improved visibility; the number of vehicles should be restricted to one; there should be a restriction on any form of structure, or other equipment, to preserve visual amenity; and, there should be greater restriction on the hours and days of opening – there was currently potential for up to 10 dogs visiting up to 10 times a day every single day of the year and he felt there should be at least one day a week when the neighbours had some respite from the nuisance.  The local resident’s major concern was the disturbance the proposal would have on the day-to-day lives of residents and the impact on their future health and wellbeing.  The proposal would radically change the environment and lives of the neighbours and the wider amenity of this quiet and beautiful part of Chosen Hill.  In his view, the Officer recommendation was wrong and the conditions proposed did not go far enough.

37.17        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the applicant ran a successful, established and highly regarded dog-walking business.  Reviews of her business contained words such as ‘professional’, ‘quality’, ‘trust’, ‘reliable’, ‘genuine’, ‘responsive’ and ‘positive’.  This proposal was really important in moving the small business forward and enabling it to thrive by providing a secure dog walking facility in a very accessible location.  In planning terms, the proposal was very similar to other dog walking proposals in the Green Belt that had been approved on similar sites, for example, planning permissions had been granted on fields at Boddington, Staverton and, very recently, Shurdington.  These cases were very similar in two important regards: each was located in the Green Belt and had at least one close residential neighbour.  He stressed that no amenity issues had arisen during operation.  There was a mature body of case law which established that planning applications must be determined in a consistent manner and not doing so would be unsound and unreasonable.  This application was before the Committee rather than being determined by Officers as it had been called in at the request of a Member due to the impact on the Green Belt and parking and highway considerations.  In terms of highways, a traffic and speed survey had been undertaken by the applicant and a detailed and accurate visibility plan had been produced with no objection raised by County Highways.  Furthermore, this type of use was accepted as appropriate in the Green Belt and there were few other land uses that could guarantee openness and lack of buildings in the longer term.  The use was the same in terms of Green Belt policy as others already approved by the Council and the law stated that the Council must determine similar cases in a consistent manner.  The applicant’s agent confirmed they fully endorsed the Officer’s analysis and the conclusion at Page No. 92, Paragraph 8.21 of the Committee report.  On that basis, there was no reasonable or sound planning reason to withhold permission for this proposal.  Granting permission would enable a successful and well-regarded small business to expand and flourish.  The applicant was agreeable to the conditions recommended in the Committee report and urged Members to follow the expert advice and Officer recommendation and grant planning permission.

37.18        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked what the proposed land use would be if it was not agricultural land and if it would be brownfield land and the Planning Officer confirmed it would be sui generis and not brownfield  Another Member noted that the Planning Officer had not stated that no objections had been received but that was incorrect as there was an objection from the Parish Council.  In response, the Planning Officer clarified that she had indicated there had been no objections from other statutory consultees.  A Member advised there was a dog walking field in his area which he had originally been sceptical about but now used to walk his own dog and, although there was only space for two cars to park, this was sufficient as people did not all walk their dogs at the same time.  Another Member queried whether it was necessary for the business to operate seven days per week as he felt there should be some relief for residents. He pointed out that use would decrease in the winter months as there would be less daylight and asked if it was possible to reduce usage to six days per week.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that the proposed condition regarding hours of operation, as set out at Page No. 98 of the report, was in line with planning permissions for other dog walking facilities in the area and took account of shorter opening times in winter months.  A Member asked why a noise assessment was not carried out given the proximity of adjacent properties and the Environmental Health Officer explained that it would be too onerous to require the applicant to undertake a noise assessment; it was not needed given the type of activity that would be taking place at the site, which was over an acre in size, with a maximum of 10 dogs on the walking area at any one time.

37.19        A Member indicated there was a dog walking facility in his area which could be hired for an hour for up to three dogs and he noted that the condition proposed in relation to this application was that no more than 10 dogs should use the area at any one time so he asked if that was per day or per hour.  The Planning Officer confirmed it was per hour.  In response to a query regarding Public Rights of Way, the Planning Officer confirmed there were none through the site.

37.20        A Member asked whether a speeding survey had been undertaken as the field was between the end of Hucclecote Road, which had a speed limit of 60mph, going into a 30mph road at Paynes Pitch and Barrow Hill so vehicles could be travelling at 60mph – she had set up a speed watch group in Churchdown which had found many cars were travelling at high speeds along that road which seemed to contradict the findings of County Highways.  The County Highways representative confirmed that a survey had been carried out in June 2022 to check average speed over a period of seven days.

37.21        A Member drew attention to Page No. 86, Paragraph 1.4 of the Committee report which stated that the field would be inspected on a daily basis and she asked who would empty the dog waste bins.  The Planning Officer clarified it was a private field so that would be the applicant’s responsibility.  The Member asked who would check whether the applicant was emptying the bins and the Principal Environmental Health Officer explained that every business had a duty of care to dispose of waste in an appropriate manner under the Environmental Protection Act.  Tewkesbury Borough Council did run a commercial waste system so the applicant could pay for that service but there were other companies that would also carry out the service on their behalf - it was up to the applicant to arrange that.  As well as the legislation covering that duty of care, there was also legislation covering odour and accumulation which could be used if any issues were to arise.  A Member was concerned that the details in relation to waste disposal etc. were not being tied down – the informative at Page No. 98 of the Committee report suggested that bins should be maintained and emptied on a regular basis but, in his view, this was too vague and he suggested that collections would be needed at least weekly by a designated collection organisation.  He also raised concern that Hucclecote Lane was a country lane but it was highly used by larger vehicles, such as double decker buses and articulated lorries, as well as cars.  In light of that, he felt it was essential that vehicles could enter and exit the site in a forward gear; however, based on the current plans and driver behaviour, it was likely that most people would drive up to the gate in its current position, get their dog out and shut the gate leaving their vehicle in that location whilst they walked their dog.  Therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to turn the gate through 90 degrees and asked why a hammerhead outside the gate was thought not to be needed.  The County Highways representative advised that County Highways had raised concern about accessibility in April 2022 and had recommended the application be refused; however, the applicant had subsequently carried out the survey which had confirmed that required levels of visibility were achievable.  In terms of how users would operate on the site, it was considered there was sufficient area within the site to turn, park and egress and it would be unreasonable to request that the access be widened.  The Member disagreed and indicated that he had visited the site himself and it was not possible to carry out a three point turn in the space which was what some people would inevitably do.  He raised concern there would be nobody supervising the site as bookings would be made remotely via a computer so there was a high degree of reliance on members of the public doing the right thing rather than reversing onto the lane.  In terms of altering the gate, the County Highways representative again reiterated that additional mitigation such as this would not be reasonable. 

37.22        With regard to the speed survey, a Member indicated that average speeds did not mean much as it only took a few vehicles travelling very slowly or very quickly to skew the results.  In terms of the supporting comments at Page No. 88, Paragraph 5.2 of the Committee report, she expressed the view that, whilst there may be a need for dog walking facilities such as the one proposed, she argued there was not a need for a new facility in Churchdown and she had seen no statistics to support that claim.  There was no way of knowing whether conditions of using the field would be abided by and nothing to prove that dog noise would be minimal – her new neighbours had two dogs and this had ruined her outdoor life.  This facility could be used by 80 dogs per day for seven days per week so she did not see how the noise that would generate could be described as minimal or how it would not impact residents who lived in very close proximity to the field.  She felt there would be an impact on views as the site was located at the foot of Chosen Hill, within the Green Belt, where development was only allowed under very special circumstances.  In terms of the other comments in support of the application, she did not see how it would be beneficial for ecology and she failed to see how the comments about the professional nature of the business were relevant to a decision.

37.23        It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the gated area with regard to vehicular access to the site.  The proposer indicated that he was aware that a Planning Committee Site Visit had been requested prior to this Committee but had been cancelled due to safety concerns as a result of the adverse weather conditions.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the gated area with regard to vehicular access to the site.