Appeal 6002093

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposed use would be suitably located in terms of its accessibility to sustainable means of transport.

The appeal site is a portion of a field in open countryside to the north of, and well-distanced from, the small village of Denchworth. It is accessed from [address], an unlit country road with no designated footpath.

The proposed development involves the establishment of an enclosed area for walking and exercising dogs. The facility would be used by, but not restricted to, dogs with reactivity and behavioural issues and would be limited to one booking at any given time. It is proposed that it would operate from Monday to Saturday during daylight hours, with an estimated usage of between two to five bookings per day. There would be no on-site staff, with only occasional attendance to ensure that the site is kept clean and tidy.

There are relevant constraints associated with taking dogs on public transport (especially if subject to behavioural issues). However, to my mind, there remains a realistic potential for dog owners to seek to utilise local bus services with their animals. The nearest bus stop is around three-quarters of a mile away in Denchworth. Whilst there is a public footpath linking the site to Denchworth across fields for much of the way, it would not be accessible to all users and would likely be unattractive to use, especially in the dark or poor weather.

Pedestrian access to the appeal site from Denchworth would otherwise be along unlit country roads, without pavements, where the national speed limit applies, and would not be an attractive proposition for walkers. There are few other public footpaths in the vicinity of the appeal site and no nearby cycle paths. The site is not one that could be described as having good access to public transport, and the appellant accepts that the facility is one that people would be likely to visit by car.

The effects of the site’s accessibility constraints would, to some extent, be limited due to the way is the proposal would operate, taking only hourly bookings during daylight hours, with only one booking having access to the facility at any one time, thus limiting the number of vehicle movements. However, especially during summer months, the potential is apparent for a greater number of bookings than the two to five per day suggested.

Furthermore, on the basis that the facility would be of not inconsiderable size and not staffed for the most part, it is unclear how the intensity of the use would be effectively managed on a day-to-day basis. Indeed, persons booking the facility would seemingly have control over the number of entrants to the site during their allotted timeslot. Moreover, no suitable management mechanism has been put before me.

The main parties agree that the proposed use would constitute a countryside recreational facility. Policy DP35 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031, (the Local Plan) Part 2 adopted 2019, sets out criteria where proposals for small scale countryside recreational facilities will be supported, which include where it is located with good access to public transport. In addition, Policy CP35 of the Local Plan, Part 1 adopted 2106, states, among other things, that the Council will work with the County Council and others to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and support measures that enable a modal shift to public transport, cycling and walking in the district. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that development promotes the use of sustainable transport modes.

For the reasons given above the proposed development would not be suitably located in terms of its accessibility to sustainable means of transport and is therefore in conflict with Policies DP35 and CP35 of the Local Plan.

The appellant has referred to the potential difficulty of finding appropriate sites which are both in a sustainable location and do not cause harm to the living conditions of nearby occupants. [name] accept the potential impact of dog barking to be a legitimate constraint, the Council has drawn my attention to a number of planning approvals in their area which satisfy both criteria. Moreover, it has not been clearly demonstrated that a suitable site for the proposed use need necessarily occupy a location very remote from any recognised settlement.

Policy DP12 of the Local Plan, which is referenced in the Council’s reason for refusal, concerns rural diversification and equestrian development. The appellant has an established dog care business in Stamford in the Vale, around 6km from the appeal site. Due to the nature of the business and the distance of separation at play, a rural diversification project is not before me for consideration. It is thus a policy of little relevance to my considerations.

There is disagreement between the main parties regarding the relevance of Local Plan Policy CP4 to the appeal proposal. This policy is titled ‘[name] and the appeal proposal would appear likely to fall outside of its scope. In any event, the policy is not cited in the Council’s reason for refusal and its requirements are not determinative to the outcome of this appeal.

The proposed development would support the growth of the appellant’s dog care business and require part time staff to maintain the site and empty the onsite bins. It may also offer benefits to local dog owners, in allowing them to exercise and train their animals in a secure environment, as well as offering biodiversity net gains over the medium to long term. However, these benefits are limited in nature and do not outweigh the harm I have found above.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.