Appeal 6001376

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 1/0141/2025/FUL for change of use from agricultural to dog exercise field at [name], Woolsery, Bideford [postcode] granted on 2 May 2025 by Torridge District Council, is varied by deleting condition 4 and substituting for it the following condition: No more than 4 dogs shall be present on the site at any given time slot.

Planning permission was granted for the use of land as a dog exercise field, which was set up for such purposes at the time of my visit. The appellant considers that the cap on a single customer and 2 dogs permitted to use the dog walking area at any one time is unreasonably restrictive. While they agree that some form of condition is necessary, and originally welcomed a 2-dog restriction, it is suggested that reference to the number of customers is omitted as well as increasing the maximum number of dogs to 4 at any given time slot. This, they say, would more reasonably align with a number of submitted examples in the district. They also note that the Council’s Environmental Protection officer did not recommend a restriction on the number of customers at application stage.

The Council asserts that as the appeal site is in such close proximity to a neighbouring farmhouse, an increased number of dogs would result in residential amenity harm. It also advances the case that while not all the examples of extant permissions cite restrictions to a single customer, one walker tends to ensure dogs are familiar with one another, thus reducing excessive noise from barking. In that context, the effect of barking on the welfare of livestock is highlighted.

I therefore consider the main issue to be the effect that varying condition 4 would have on the living conditions of nearby residents.

The appeal site comprises a fenced off generous parcel of flat ground that includes an informal grassed area, as well as a dedicated training area with a small field shelter. It is of a scale that could comfortably accommodate more than 2 dogs without feeling unduly cramped.

The boundary furthest from the training area adjoins a neighbouring farmyard. Here, large agricultural buildings are positioned beyond a thick tree lined hedge. The appeal site is set well below the farmhouse. Its closest corner is nearest to one of the large farm buildings. In the unlikely event dogs were to congregate in this corner, the farmhouse and its immediate gardens remain separated by a substantial amount of natural screening, built form and a generous distance. While it is not known exactly what effect 2 more dogs might have on travelling sound, my observations were that the appeal field did not feel uncomfortably close to the farmhouse.

Additionally, I noticed significant noise coming from the farmyard, including that from heavy machinery movements and livestock. While up to 4 dogs unfamiliar with one another could introduce new and more persistent noise sources, these must be considered in the context of the intrinsic character of the area, where the sounds of a working farmyard are most likely to form a dominant and established

I agree with the Council that each case must be determined on its individual merits, and this particular appeal does not turn on a matter of consistency. Accordingly, based on the available evidence and my own observations, the noise generated by 2 more dogs would in all probability be subsumed by the existing noise climate. This would be likely to amount to negligible increases in overall ambient sound levels.

It is acknowledged that existing agricultural operations should not have unreasonable restrictions placed upon them, including where the welfare of its livestock might be affected. However, there is little evidence this modest increase in the intensity of the use of the field would have any meaningful effect on livestock, particularly given the noisy rural backdrop. In these circumstances, additional noise assessments or management plans would not be necessary.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the varying of condition 4 would not harmfully affect the living conditions of nearby residents. As such, there would be no conflict with Policy DM01 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan which says, in part, that development will be supported where it does not significantly harm the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition and substitute it for a new one.