Appeal 6003124

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the change of use from agricultural field to dog walking facility, including fences, gates, hedges and field shelter at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 06/25/0725/F and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

My attention has been drawn to the emerging Great Yarmouth Local Plan which is understood to be at an advanced stage in examination. While the Council has provided details of the weight it considers should be afforded to its policies, based on outstanding issues, I have limited information regarding the status of the emerging plan such as any interim findings or main modifications. The Council also states that emerging policies cited in its reasons for refusal should be afforded limited weight due to outstanding objections. Therefore, given the lack of certainty over the final form of the emerging policies, I have afforded the emerging Local Plan limited weight.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • best and most versatile agricultural land; and • the living conditions of nearby occupants, with particular regard to noise.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of agricultural land on the eastern side of [address]. There is no dispute between the parties that the site lies outside of any defined settlement boundary, within the countryside. Policy GSP1 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2 (2021) (the LPP2) states that development will not be permitted on land outside of development limits except where it comprises (a) agricultural or forestry development, (b) the provision of utilities and highway infrastructure or (c) specific policies in the Local Plan indicate otherwise.

The Council sets out that the appeal scheme has the potential to alleviate some recreational pressure on designated wildlife sites within the Borough such as the Special Area of Conservation at [name] (the SAC) by providing an alternative space for local people to exercise dogs. It therefore concludes that the development would support the aims of Policy CS11 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: [name] 2013-2030 (the [name]), Policy GSP5 of the LPP2 and the wider Norfolk Green Infrastructure and [name] and [name] (2021) such that the principle of the proposed use in this location would be acceptable in accordance with part (c) of Policy GSP1. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree.

The crux of the Council’s concern relates to the effect of the development on best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV). The evidence indicates that the site comprises approximately 0.9 hectares of Grade 1 (the highest quality) BMV land which is understood to be used for the grazing of livestock. The level of development within the site would be limited to the proposed fencing, two small areas where the shelters would be located and the parking area. Most of the site would remain as grassland and there would be a very limited physical development of BMV land within the site. Due to the nature and extent of the development it would also be easily reversable.

While the appeal scheme would result in the land being taken out of agricultural use, no evidence has been provided to quantify the potential impact of this on local agricultural production. However, given the size of the appeal site, it is unlikely that this proposal would have any significant effect on agricultural productivity in the area, and the evidence indicates that the land is not currently in use for arable production in any event. The extent of development would not preclude the site from being used for agricultural purposes in the future and the scheme would not have a significant impact on the soil as a resource. Nevertheless, I accept that the appeal scheme would result in the land being taken out of agricultural use and thus there would be a very limited loss of BMV land as a result. This is contrary to Policy CS12 of the [name] which recognises the need to protect the BMV land as a valuable resource for future generations and minimise its loss to development and therefore weighs against the development.

While paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not prohibit the development of BMV land, it does highlight the benefits of BMV land as natural capital and supports the protection of soils. In this respect, Policy CS6 of the [name] seeks to minimise the potential loss of the BMV land by ensuring that development on such land is only permitted if it can be demonstrated that there is an overriding sustainability benefit from the development and there are no realistic opportunities for accommodating the development elsewhere. [name] have not been directed to any part of this policy, or any other local or national policy which requires a need to be demonstrated for this type of development, there is no substantive evidence before me relating to the potential sustainability benefits of the development or that other potential sites have been explored. I therefore cannot be certain that there are no realistic opportunities for accommodating the development elsewhere to justify the loss of BMV land.

The appellant refers to the scheme as rural diversification. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that this scheme would support an existing land-based rural business. Moreover, while I acknowledge that paragraph 88 of the Framework supports sustainable rural leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside, intrinsic to this is recognising the benefits of natural capital, such as BMV land. In this case, irrespective of whether there is local demand for such a facility or not, the appellant has not demonstrated that the loss of BMV land has been minimised in accordance with the local plan.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the development would result in a very limited loss of BMV agricultural land. This conflicts with Policies CS6 and CS12 of the [name] insofar as they seek to protect BMV agricultural land and minimise its loss to development. It also conflicts with the Framework where it seeks to conserve natural capital such as BMV agricultural land. The Council has referred to Policy GSP1 of the LPP2 and OSS3 of the emerging Local Plan. However, as these policies do not relate to BMV land they are not determinative in my consideration of this main issue.

The appeal site is situated on [address] which is a relatively enclosed single-track road. Residential properties exist within the immediately surrounding area, including adjacent to the northern boundary ([address]) and on the opposite side of the highway to the west. To the south is a farm and to the east are open fields. The western boundary of the site is mostly bound by a established hedgerow which provides a relatively good degree of containment.

During my site visit I observed a moderate to low level of background noise. [name] accept that my site visit only represents a snapshot in time, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest what I experienced was uncommon other than the reference in the Council’s officer report which states that the road is heavily used by farm traffic accessing the farmyard to the south, which would add to background noise levels.

The comings and goings of vehicles, people and dogs associated with the proposed use is likely to increase the level of noise and disturbance from the appeal site when compared with the current agricultural use. However, the agricultural use of the land would give rise to the potential for noise and disturbance and there is no evidence before me which indicates there are any restrictions on the current use of the land in this respect.

Access would be taken from the north-western corner of the site which would serve a parking area and both fields. A fence and hedge are proposed along the common boundary with No 29 and the location of the parking area would be relatively well separated from this property. It is proposed that access to the fields would be by a pre-booked time slot system with a limit on the maximum number of dogs per field and restricted opening hours. No external lighting is proposed which would limit the use of the site to daylight hours and dog walking groups, training groups and other group activities would be prohibited.

I am satisfied that planning conditions could reasonably be imposed to restrict the operating hours of the facility and limit the number of dogs and customers to a modest level. This would ensure that the field could not be used at certain times of the day when neighbouring occupiers would reasonably expect a degree of peace and quiet. Furthermore, limiting the number of dogs and customers using the site at any one time would restrict potential noise and disturbance.

Even if the site was fully booked, and noise from dogs barking and raised voices was audible from nearby properties, this is likely to be relatively intermittent and well contained by existing and proposed boundary treatments. Given the nature of surrounding uses, the scale of the development, existing background noise and subject to suitably worded planning conditions, I am satisfied that noise from dogs and site users would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

Vehicle movements to and from the site may also generate a degree of noise. However, the distances between the access and parking area to nearby residential properties are reasonable and such noise is only likely to occur at the beginning and end of each session. Subject to a condition limiting the number of customers using the site at any one time, I am satisfied that the noise associated with vehicle movements would not be materially harmful in itself, or in combination with other activities at the site, such that it would diminish the overall living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of nearby occupants, with particular regard to noise. This complies with Policy CS9 of the [name], Policy A1 of the LPP2 and Policy HEC7 of the emerging Local Plan insofar as they seek to protect the amenity of existing residents.

In addition to the matters addressed above, representations from interested parties raise concerns in relation to several other matters including the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, local ecology and biodiversity, highway safety including the effects of additional traffic, flooding and the efficacy of the waste collection strategy proposed. However, the Council has not identified any harm in these respects. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit observations, I see no reason to come to a different conclusion.

Concerns have also been raised relating to past planning applications on the site and the potential for this appeal scheme to prejudice future development proposals on the land. However, as each planning application must be considered on its own merits this has not influenced my decision. Furthermore, whether there are alternative similar facilities and open spaces within the local area for dog walking is not determinative in my assessment of the planning merits of this case.

The Council refers to the benefits of the development reducing recreational pressure on designated wildlife sites within the Borough such as the SAC as having already been realised elsewhere with permission granted for a similar facility at Burgh Castle1. I have not been provided with any details relating to this case. However, nor have I been presented with any substantive evidence that there is a limit to such development or the consequential benefits that would arise from providing alternative spaces for local people to exercise dogs.

The Council has suggested several conditions which I have considered in light of the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Where appropriate, I have adjusted the wording of the conditions to improve precision and enforceability.

In addition to the standard three-year time limit condition for implementation, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. Conditions are also imposed requiring the submission and implementation of a landscaping 1 Council Ref. 06/25/0347/CU scheme in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of nearby residents. I have also imposed conditions requiring the submission of access details, restricting the installation of any means of obstruction at the access and requiring the parking/turning areas within the site to be laid out in the interests of highway safety.

Conditions restricting the maximum number of customers and dogs using the site at any one time, preventing the installation of external lighting and use of the site by groups/training classes and requiring the submission of an Operational Management Plan (OMP) have also been imposed in the interest of preserving the living conditions of surrounding properties. As the OMP could include details of the booking system and time slots I have amended the wording of the Council’s other suggested conditions accordingly. I have restricted the use of the site to no more than two customers and four dogs at any one time to ensure the use and any associated noise and disturbance is kept to a moderate level, commensurate with the scale of the site and background noise levels. This would also prevent customer crossover.

For the same reason, I have also imposed a condition restricting the opening hours of the facility. I have used the Council’s suggested operating hours, which the appellant has not objected to, as this would limit the early morning use of the facility when residents would reasonably expect lower noise levels. I have also omitted reference to winter and summer opening times as the restriction on external lighting would sufficiently limit the use of the site to daylight hours in winter months.

A condition is also suggested to secure a Biodiversity Gain Plan. However, where [name] is applicable the general biodiversity gain condition is deemed to apply to every planning permission granted and should not be duplicated by planning conditions. As such, I have not attached this condition.

I have concluded that there would be a very limited loss of BMV land as a result of the development and consequently, given the nature and scale of the appeal scheme, very minor conflict with Policies CS6 and CS12 of the [name] insofar as they seek to protect BMV agricultural land and minimise its loss to development. This conflict attracts very limited weight in the context of the appeal scheme.

However, balanced against this, the proposal could alleviate some of the recreational pressures on designated wildlife sites within the Borough such as the SAC by providing an alternative dog walking facility. The development would also support the rural economy, provide a safe environment for all people to walk and interact with dogs and would benefit the local community through the provision of safe and accessible green infrastructure. Taken together, the associated economic, social and environmental benefits would outweigh the very limited harm I have identified.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposal is considered to accord with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos LJA/044/25/01A and LJA/044/25/02C.

Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a planting plan detailing full specifications of all new planting along with details for their protection during establishment, details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out prior to first use of the site; and any trees or plants which within a period of 10 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted an Operational Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This should include all noise mitigation measures, detailed waste management proposals, a customer user agreement and complaint management protocol. The development and use shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved Operational Management Plan.

Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted a detailed scheme for the vehicular access, including details of surface water drainage, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The vehicular access shall be constructed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to first use of the site and retained thereafter.

Prior to the commencement of the use hereby permitted the vehicle parking spaces and turning areas shall be laid out, demarcated, levelled, surfaced and drained in accordance with drawing no LJA/044/25/02C. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking and turning of vehicles only.

Any gates/bollard/chain/or other means of obstruction at the site access shall be set back a minimum distance of 8 metres from the near channel edge of the adjacent carriageway and hung to open inwards.

The site shall only be open for customers between the following hours: Mondays to Fridays: 08:00 – 19:00 Sundays and Public and [name] (all year): 10:00 – 17:00

No more than two customers and four dogs shall be on the site at any one time.

The site shall not be used by groups, clubs or training classes at any time.

No external lighting shall be installed at the site. ** END OF SCHEDULE **