Appeal 6000796

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from agricultural field to secure dog field. Proposed fencing around perimeter of the field. Proposed single storey mobile field shelter at Field to the south of [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00041/FUL, dated 6 January 2025 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] of [name]! Chew Valley Dog Adventures against Bath and North East Somerset Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The location and description of the proposed development stated on the application form are reflected in the heading above. Bath and North East Somerset Council (the Council) added the bracketed word retrospective to the description without consultation with the appellant. However, the perimeter fencing, field shelter and elements of the parking area, which form part of the description of development being applied for, were evident at the time of my site visit.

Revised plans were submitted during the course of the planning application. Clarification from both parties confirms that these are the plans upon which the Council’s decision was made. I have proceeded on that basis.

The main issues are:

the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupiers of nearby residential properties with regard to noise; and

whether the site is in an accessible location having regard to local planning policies; and

the effect of the development on the best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV).

The submitted Paws-Up Paddock Management Plan (the ‘management plan’) outlines how the site will operate. The proposed hours of operation are limited to between 8am to 4pm in winter (1st October - 29th February) and 7am to 8pm in summer (1st March - 30th September). Each session would be booked via an online system, limited to 50 minutes with a 10 minute changeover period, and a maximum of six dogs per booking. Parking for customers would be located just off [site address] with a gated system controlling entry and egress. Access to the dog walking field would be through a code protected security gate.

The threshold set by Policy D6 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (2017) (PP) is to avoid significant harm derived from, amongst other things, noise. Whilst the submission was not accompanied by a technical noise assessment, the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer (EPO) highlighted that ‘...it would be challenging to make predictions on the noise output of such a small number of dogs.’ As such, it is not clear that there is an appropriate objective methodology that could be applied in a noise assessment in these circumstances.

The consultation response of the EPO goes on to add that, ‘I've had a look at the management plan and I think the approach of enabling complaints re: noisy users which would then be monitored provides an appropriate safeguard against significant disturbance should it arise.’ Given the area of expertise of the [name] have attributed these comments considerable weight.

It is understood that the booking system would be open to both commercial dog walkers and private dog owners who would be responsible for the behaviour of the dogs in their charge for the duration of their visit. In both instances it is likely that these dogs will have been socialised prior to their first visit to the site and be used to the company of other dogs.

The management plan submitted by the appellant outlines mitigation measures that would be employed to manage noise on the appeal site. These include an induction process for customers, ensuring that sessions are separated by a 10 minute changeover period, limiting the number of dogs per session, and restricting the use of the appeal site to daylight hours of operation.

Whilst these measures would not entirely prevent noise generated from barking dogs, they would be sufficient to avoid significant harm to the nearest residential occupiers. Conditions could ensure compliance with the management plan, set a maximum number of dogs using the field and the hours of operation.

Moreover, I am mindful that the agricultural use of the field is already likely to have some impact on nearby residential occupiers. For example, the grazing or keeping of livestock on a permanent or rotation basis and/or use of agricultural machinery. I consider that the vehicle movements and activities associated with the appeal proposal would be broadly similar to those associated with an agricultural use.

For the reasons above, on the first main issue, I conclude that the proposed use of the site would not significantly adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties with regard to noise.

Therefore, the proposal complies with the provisions of Policy D6 of the PP, which amongst other things requires proposed development to not cause significant harm to the amenities of existing residential occupiers by reason of increased noise.

The appeal site is located in the open countryside and within the green belt. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would avoid inappropriate development in the green belt. The Council’s concern in relation to the location is that there would not be a range of realistic travel opportunities to provide genuine alternatives to private car usage. This is one of the principles set out in policy ST1 of the LPPU which seeks to promote sustainable travel.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) acknowledges that development in rural locations may be beyond existing settlements, and in locations not well served by public transport. In these circumstances there is an expectation for development to exploit opportunities for access on foot, by cycling or by public transport. Policy ST1 mirrors these requirements.

Nevertheless, policy ST1 also states that the principles should be applied appropriate to the context and type of development. Dog walking fields are inherently better suited to rural sites due to their operational requirements and the need to maintain compatibility with surrounding land uses. The proposed use requires an open space to provide a secure and natural environment for dogs to exercise freely, which would be unlikely to be achievable within an urban or suburban setting without causing significant land-use conflicts. Accordingly, it would not be realistic to necessarily expect paved footways and lighting in these circumstances. Indeed, such users would not be seeking them.

Furthermore, during my site inspection I noted the network of public rights of way (PROW) and cycle routes which exist in the immediate locality of the appeal site which extend outward to the wider area. As identified in the appellant’s evidence the PROW network provides reasonable links to villages and settlements within close walking distance of the site such as [site address] , [name], [name], [name] and Pensford. Whilst it is likely that many visits would be by private car, I find that there are networks that would offer a realistic alternative to the private car for some.

For the reasons given above, I conclude on the second main issue, that the proposal is in a reasonably accessible location.

The proposal is therefore consistent with the aims and objectives of Policy ST1 of the LPPU which seeks to promote sustainable travel.

The appellant commissioned an agricultural land classification and considerations survey and report. This report determined that the land is Grade 3a and I have not seen technical evidence to undermine that finding. Grade 3a falls within the definition of BMV in the Framework.

The Council’s third reason for refusal cites harm arising from the loss of BMV. The refusal reason does not state there would be conflict with the wording of the specific policy in the development plan (policy RE5) in relation to protecting agricultural land, as this concentrates on Grades 1 and 2. Rather they rely on Part 15 of the Framework. Moreover, whilst the Council’s statement mentions policy RE5, it does not state there would be conflict with it, rather they refer to policy ST1 of the LPPU which was addressed in the previous main issue.

Paragraph 187 of the Framework states that decisions should recognise the economic and other benefits of BMV. Paragraph 188 of the Framework relates to plan making rather than specific proposals such as the one before me.

The agricultural land report provided denotes a limited economic value to agricultural potential of the appeal site.

Moreover, the evidence before me shows the land to be in private ownership and there are no national or local policies that require agricultural land of any grade to be farmed.

Paragraph 88 of the Framework seeks to support the sustainable growth of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas. The proposal is entirely consistent with the Framework in this regard. Although the proposal is not for a limited period, I have taken account of the very limited physical changes proposed, whereby the soils would be likely to remain intact. Hence, the use would be compatible with the land being easily returned to agriculture at a future point.

Therefore, I conclude, on the third main issue, that the effect of the proposal on BMV would not be a harmful one. On that basis I find it would accord with the relevant paragraphs of the Framework as well as policy RE5 of the PP.

I have read the comments submitted by the interested parties and carried out my site inspection with these in mind.

I note that Policy HDE7 of the Chew Valley Neighbourhood Plan requires a Traffic Impact Assessment for non-residential development submissions and the appellant had not done so. However, the Council’s Transportation and Highways department did not object to the proposal and commented that the proposal would have a limited impact on the highway. In the absence of technical evidence to find otherwise, I have little basis to find the proposal would be harmful on transportation grounds.

The fencing and associated management plan are designed to prevent any perceived adverse impact on grazing animals and minimise the risk of escape or trespass. The fence will provide a clear physical boundary, ensuring any livestock on adjacent land remain undisturbed whilst safeguarding against unauthorised access. In planning terms, the proposal is considered acceptable. Furthermore, private interests and property rights are protected under separate legislation, which operate outside of planning controls.

Given the modest physical works, there is no technical evidence to show they would cause drainage problems. The Grasscrete and GeoTextile systems shown for the access track and parking area are recognised permeable surface solutions.

No toilet or washroom facilities are proposed but, given the short period of occupation by customers these would not be necessary.

Other similar dog walking facilities are highlighted such that it is stated there is no and the need for another in the locality. However, the principle of the development has been found acceptable against relevant planning policies, and it is not shown that evidencing a need at this location is a requirement of local or national planning policies.

I have made my determination on the information provided. Any development that requires planning permission carried out prior to the grant of any planning permission, would be a matter for the Council to investigate.

I find nothing about the proposal to be at odds with the prevailing character of the rural environment. The movable shed and boundary treatment respect the rural setting by prioritising natural aesthetics, minimising visual impact, through a general compatibility with established agricultural practices.

In terms of ecology, a [name] by [name] dated the 11th of March 2025 was submitted with the proposal. No objections were raised by the Council’s Ecologist subject to appropriately worded conditions. Accordingly, there is little basis to consider the proposal would be harmful to wildlife.

Revised plans were submitted during the course of the application. I have sought clarification from both parties and as such, I have referenced the plans relevant to the development, according to the response I have received.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, management plan, and expressly, specifying a maximum number of dogs and the hours of operation. These are, in the interests of certainty, highway safety and living conditions of neighbouring residents.

Conditions have also been imposed to prevent external lighting and to ensure the ecological recommendations are carried out in the interests of wildlife.

Based on the evidence provided in the application form, the general biodiversity gain condition under Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 applies directly to the grant of permission in this case. This requires the approval of a biodiversity gain plan as a pre-requisite of development, and therefore, it is unnecessary to duplicate it as suggested by one of the Council’s conditions.

The Council’s Ecology officer also recommended a construction environmental management plan to be agreed prior to any development taking place. However, given the modest physical works involved and a condition already imposed to comply with the recommendations of the [name], this would be disproportionate and unnecessary in these circumstances. Therefore, I have not imposed it.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, including the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development/works hereby permitted shall only be implemented in accordance with the plans as set out in the plans list below. • DR001 SITE LOCATION PLAN - [name] • DR0010a PROPOSED SITE PLAN - [name] • DR0011a PROPOSED SITE PLAN - ACCESS • DR0012 [name]

The operation of the development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the submitted 2025 [name]! Paddock Management Plan.

The hours of operation are limited to between 8am to 4pm in winter (1st October - 29th February) and 7am to 8pm in summer (1st March - 30th September).

The number of dogs in the secured dog walking field shall not exceed six at any one time.

No new external lighting shall be installed at the site.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out only in accordance with the proposed ecological recommendations as detailed in Section 6 of the approved report entitled "[name]" dated the 11th of March 2025 by [name]. All such measures shall be adhered to, retained and maintained thereafter for the purpose of wildlife conservation.

No occupation of the development hereby approved shall commence until a report produced by a suitably experienced professional ecologist (based on post-construction on-site inspection by a suitably experienced professional ecologist) confirming and demonstrating, using photographs, adherence to and completion of the [name] in accordance with approved details, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. END OF SCHEDULE