Appeal 6002933

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Change of use of part of the existing building from agriculture to dog breeding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/122/00592/24, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs has been made by [name] (the appellant), against East Lindsey District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

At the time of my site visit I observed that dogs were being housed in the northern portion of the building in enclosed pens, and the southern portion was largely empty. I have, however, dealt with the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

The description of the proposal has been amended in the heading above to omit the words ‘works commenced,’ as that is not a description of development.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, with regard to noise and disturbance; and • animal welfare.

The appeal site comprises a metal clad, portal framed building, with roller shutter doors, and personnel doors (the appeal building). Space to the rear is laid with loose hard surfacing, with the remainder grassed with some piles of loose materials. The wider site comprises a field, driveway access to [site address] , a static caravan, and an open sided agricultural building, which abuts the southern gable of the aforementioned metal clad building.

The closest separate neighbouring properties are [address] and [address], which lie approximately 95 metres away to the north, and 145 metres away to the north-west, respectively. There are also other dwellings in the vicinity.

Dog breeding has taken place on the site since 2022. This has comprised dogs being housed and bred in the northern portion of the building in fourteen individual pens. The building does not benefit from any acoustic insulation. The existing arrangement has resulted in complaints being raised with the Council, by neighbouring occupiers. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to doubt that the existing operation exposes nearby residents to noise and disturbance instances, from the dogs barking.

As part of the application process, the appellant commissioned a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA)1 to consider noise issues. The methodology used to assess noise, and the conclusions of the NIA were agreed by the Council’s Environmental Protection Officer – [name] ([name]), and it is reasonable to assume they have the relevant expertise to do so. Whilst interested parties assert that the NIA does not model for 30 dogs housed indoors for 14 hours per day, that is not the proposal before me. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary therefore, I have no reason to doubt the findings of the NIA.

The proposal includes the relocation of the dog pens to the southern portion of the building, and specific noise insulation measures. These include insulation to the ceiling and walls, non-openable windows, self-closing doors, close-fitting pop-hole flaps, and mechanical ventilation. In relation to the external areas, the runs and exercise areas would be located along the south western boundary and enclosed by fencing, as well as other means of acoustic screening.

The proposal would also include restrictions on the operation. No more than 16 adult dogs for breeding would be on site at any time, with 30 dogs on site in total including puppies; no more than 10 dogs using the external area at any one time, and only between 08.00 and 18.00; no more than one customer group / family visiting the site at any time, and by appointment only. A Noise Management Plan would also set out protocols for reducing unnecessary noise through the management and supervision of the dogs.

It is apparent that the aforementioned mitigation measures and restrictions, have resulted from the conclusions and recommendations of the NIA, and from consultation with the Council’s Noise Officer. I therefore give significant weight to their findings. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I consider that subject to the measures being carried out in full, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance.

The Council asserts that the mitigation measures may only have a marginal effect, such that noise and disturbance would not be significantly reduced. However this stance differs from the conclusions of the NIA and the [name] and is not substantiated with alternative evidence. 1 [name] & Air Quality, [name]: P7942-R1-V1.

The proposal is entirely reliant on the aforementioned measures and restrictions, in order to ameliorate the harmful effects of noise and disturbance. Doubts have been raised by parties, that the measures would be put into place or that any conditions would be complied with. In support of this stance, interested parties refer to the operation of the existing business without a licence, recommended improvement measures, and a failure to comply with conditions imposed on previous planning permissions2.

Nevertheless, paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), is clear that consideration should be given to whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of planning conditions. Moreover, the Planning Practice Guidance states that when used properly, conditions can enable development to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects. Despite the misgivings of interested parties, there is no substantive evidence that future conditions would not be complied with, and there is nothing to prevent the Council from enforcing any breaches of planning control or of any other regulatory controls such as licensing, should it be considered expedient to do so.

Accordingly, I find that the complexity and specifics of the requirements are not a reason to refuse planning permission. There is also no substantive evidence before me, that a ventilation system could not be operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Taking the above factors together, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I conclude that the development would not harmfully impact upon the living conditions of nearby residential occupiers, with regard to noise and disturbance. Accordingly, the development would comply with the relevant provisions of Policy SP10 of the Local Plan3, and paragraph 135 of the Framework. Together, they require well designed, sustainable new development that safeguards residential amenity, amongst other things.

My attention is also drawn to Policies SP1, SP7 and SP16 of the Local Plan by interested parties. However, these relate to settlement patterns, flood risk and affordable and low-cost housing. [name] identify no conflict with these policies.

Animal welfare can constitute a planning consideration, as reaffirmed by recent caselaw4. Furthermore, legislation recognises sentience of animals, including with regards to their welfare5. It follows that a suitable environment, should be provided for the welfare of the dogs. This would be required to reduce incidences of excessive barking, amongst other things.

The proposal comprises separate pens, four with direct access to external runs, and there would be a separate outdoor exercise area. There would be windows on either side of the building to allow for natural light, and the building would be ventilated and insulated such that temperature and air would be regulated. The 2 S/122/01818/17; S/122/01312/23. 3 East Lindsey Local Plan, [name], [name] 2018, [name] for the Future. 4 R (Animal Equality UK) v North East Lincolnshire Council [2025] EWHC 1331 (Admin). 5 [name] (Sentience) Act 2022. appellant resides at [address]. A noise management plan would set out measures for the effective management to reduce barking events. The NIA is clear that this would include measures directly relating to welfare, such as the separation of animals, stimulation, and sufficient exercise. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I have no reason to consider that these arrangements would not amount to a suitable environment to safeguard the welfare of the dogs.

Access to the outside areas would be limited to 08:00 to 18:00 and to ten dogs at a time. Within that timeframe, it is reasonable to assume that scheduling could allow for a rotation of dogs accessing the external areas, such that access to it would not be severely restricted. Moreover, the size of the pens6 is within the parameters of indoor space, quoted to me as being within practical guidance of 6 – [address] metres, and there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the external spaces would not be adequate.

The Council and interested parties refer to the current operation in respect of specific welfare concerns. These refer amongst other things, to a lack of outdoor areas, a lack of windows and no insulating properties to the building, limited stimulation, and the manner in which puppies are advertised. However, that is not the proposal before me, and I do not consider these to be comparable factors.

The dog breeding operation is subject to control under the licensing regime7. I am mindful that a license has been applied for but has not yet been obtained. There is also no indication from the [name] – [name] (ALO), as to whether or not the proposal would be capable of obtaining a licence.

Where regulatory regimes overlap, it is for the decision maker to determine whether to grant planning permission on the basis that problems could be resolved by the separate regime. It is also established that the effectiveness of another regulatory regime can be taken into account8.

The specific licensing requirements are not before me. However, the ALO notes that the number of dogs kept for the activity at any time, must not exceed the maximum that is reasonable, taking account of facilities and staffing. Evidence also indicates that space standards will be a consideration, amongst many other welfare considerations, such as practices relating to breeding bitches.

It may be the case that particular aspects of the dog breeding enterprise may need to be altered as a result of the licensing requirements. For example, a change to the numbers of dogs kept on site, or to the layout as a result of space requirements, or management measures. However, where these matters require an amendment to any planning permission, the mechanisms to do so are available within planning legislation. For example, via Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). Moreover, the Committee report notes at paragraph 7.8, that the number of dogs kept on site that would be restricted by planning condition, would be unlikely to exceed the numbers recommended by the ALO. 6 Each approximately [address] metres. 7 The Animal Welfare (Licensing of [name]) (England) Regulations 2018. 8 The National Farmers Union v Herefordshire Council & Ors [2025] EWHC 536 (Admin); [address] Residents’ Association v London Borough of Lambeth [2022] EWHC 1207 (Admin)

Before me, are reports concerning the licensing regime9. They identify national inconsistencies in respect of enforcement capacity, action following complaints, inspections and licence renewals, amongst other things. There is nothing before me to dispute the findings, and I have no reason to disagree with them. The reports, however, do not identify specific concerns in respect of licensing within the district. I note for example that the Council has a designated ALO that has already engaged with the proposal, whereas the report identifies that many local authorities do not benefit from dedicated staff. The report also centres on national inconsistences, with the implication that there is a mixed picture of performance across the country. The reports, therefore, do not persuade me that the separate regulatory regime is not effective to deal with relevant issues.

Staff would be required to be present on site to care for the dogs, and the temporary planning permission for the static caravan expires in November 202710. Be that as it may, the accommodation meets the need identified by the Council until that date. It is open to the appellant to apply to the Council for a permanent dwelling, which would be assessed under Policy SP8 of the Local Plan. I am told that this allows for rural workers housing, subject to meeting criteria such as functional need and viability.

An interested party refers me to a refusal of planning permission11, relating to noise impacts and consequential animal welfare concerns. However, I do not have the details before me in order to assess any comparable factors, which limits the weight I attribute to it.

Taking the above factors together, I conclude that the development as proposed, would not have an adverse effect on animal welfare.

Interested parties raise concerns about the demand for dog breeding enterprises, set against the availability of rescue dogs, and the ethics of such enterprises, such as profiting. However, these are generalised concerns that are not evidenced as being of direct relevance to the appeal proposal. Concerns are also raised in respect of long-term health effects of dogs within breeding enterprises, and indeed, a government strategy is committed to ending low welfare breeding of dogs. However, for the reasons I have identified, there is no evidence that low welfare breeding would be a direct effect of the proposal. Therefore, these are not matters that would justify withholding permission.

Whilst interested parties refer to puppies having been advertised online, Lucy’s Law12 is legislation that requires buyers to purchase directly from breeders. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant would not abide by this requirement, and that would be a matter for the aforementioned regime.

The proposal before me is for a change of use to a dog breeding enterprise. Whether or not there is a viable farming enterprise weighs neither for nor against the proposal. 9 [name], Recommendations on [name] and Regulation of [name] in the UK & Puppy breeding and licensing: a postcode lottery of enforcement, [name], April 2025. 10 Council Ref: S/122/00852/24. 11 S/122/00592/24 12 [name] (Licensing of [name]) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.

The dog breeding business, including visiting members of the public, would operate alongside the housing of livestock. Interested parties assert that this would give rise to environmental and biosecurity risks. However this is not supported with evidence, and I have no compelling reason to consider that this would be a factor.

Objections have also been received relating to waste disposal and potential impacts on the wider area, taking account of caselaw13. The Officer committee report addresses this concern, and based on the information before me, I have no reason to reach a different view on this matter. A condition of planning permission would be reasonable to ensure the correct disposal of animal waste. [name] conclude that the development would not have an impact outside the site, it follows that it would not impact upon Bardney Limewoods National Nature Reserve / Site of Special Scientific Interest, which I am told lies approximately two kilometres from the appeal site. There is no evidence before me to indicate otherwise.

The Framework sets out that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. I have assessed the suggested list of conditions on this basis and made some amendments where necessary to meet those tests. Also where necessary, I have sought comments from the main parties in respect of those amendments.

I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans and drawings for certainty, but I have not attached a time limit for commencement as the parties are in agreement that the use has already begun.

I have imposed conditions requiring details of the ventilation systems, noise mitigation measures relating to the outside areas, a noise management plan and a waste management plan, together with a timescale for their submission, and timescales for the development to be carried out in accordance with the aforementioned details. I have also imposed conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the NIA and site layout plan, including fencing details, barrier between the external run and exercise area, close-fitting pop-hole flaps, and insulation of the building.

There is a strict timetable for compliance with the aforementioned conditions because permission is being granted retrospectively. It is, therefore, not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of the requirements before the development takes place. The conditions will also ensure that the development can be enforced against if the requirements are not met.

I have also imposed conditions: limiting the number of dogs within the site, restricting the number of dogs using the external area and the hours the external area can be used and limiting visitors to one customer / family at any one time. I have also imposed a condition restricting the opening of doors and windows.

The conditions referred to, other than that specifying the approved plans, are imposed to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and the 13 (R) Squire v Shropshire Council [2019] [name] 888; The National Farmers Union v Herefordshire County Council, the Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities and [name] [2025] EWHC 536 (Admin) requirement for a waste management plan is also imposed in the interests of environmental protection.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: location plan (received 25/07/2025); AH-0-02 ‘location plan’ (received 12/06/2025); floor plan (received 12/06/2025).

The use hereby permitted shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed within 1 month of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in i) to iv) below: i) Within three months of the date of this decision, the following details shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority, together with a timetable for their implementation: a) all proposed ventilation systems, including technical and acoustic performance details of the outlet and passive ventilation, and the positioning of all vents, with reference to section 6.2.3 and 6.2.4 of the [name] & Air Quality, Report (ref: P7942-R1-V1) (the NIA); b) noise mitigation measures pertaining to the outdoor exercise areas and external runs, including close-boarded fencing and its height, pop-hole flaps and their fit; c) a physical barrier between the external exercise area and the external runs; d) a Noise Management Plan, which relates to sections 6.3.2 to 6.3.10 of the NIA, and which includes details of: noise sources, hours of operation, mitigation measures, monitoring procedures, complaint handling protocols and responsibilities for implementation; e) the additional mitigation measures set out in sections 6.2 of the NIA; and f) a Waste Management Plan, which includes: a means of disposal of wash down/liquid waste, including details of drainage to a septic tank and soakaway system, or to a package treatment plant that treats wash down water/waste such that it is of a condition that can be discharged to a watercourse; and siting of a lidded solid waste skip, and details of how the waste will be removed from the site. ii) If within six months of the date of this decision the local planning authority refuse to approve the schemes or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State. iii) If an appeal is made in pursuance of ii) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State. iv) The approved schemes shall have been carried out and completed in accordance with the approved timetable. Upon completion of the approved schemes specified in this condition, those schemes shall thereafter be maintained and retained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

All doors and windows serving the building in which the dog breeding business is located shall be non-opening double-glazed units. Personnel doors shall be fitted with self-closing devices.

All outdoor areas used by dogs shall not be used outside 08:00 to 18:00 hours on any given day, and no more than ten dogs will be outside at any given time.

The number of customers on the site at any one time shall not exceed one group/family, and this shall be by appointment only. A record of customer visits shall be maintained and made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request.

The number of adult dogs kept on the premises for the purposes of breeding shall not exceed 16 at any one time, or a lower number dictated by the requirement for compliance with an [name]. A maximum of 30 dogs shall be kept on the premises, including pets, retired dogs, the adult males, breeding bitches, bitches/dogs not yet at breeding age and puppies), or a lower number dictated by the requirement for compliance with an [name]. A register of all dogs kept on site, including dates of birth and breeding status shall be maintained and made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. END OF CONDITIONS