Appeal 6004127

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission ref WD/2025/1176 for the change of use of land from agricultural/equestrian to a dog exercise area with erection of fence/gate at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Horam [postcode] granted on 25 July 2025 by Wealden District Council, is varied by deleting condition 3 and substituting it for the following condition:

i) The use of the site for dog walking hereby approved shall be by prior appointment only and not take place other than between the hours of: 07:00 to 20:00 (or dusk during winter months) Monday to Saturday, Sundays, Public and [name]. ii) The use shall only be undertaken within the enclosure as shown on Site Plan - [name] (Drawing numbered 307.25.01 date stamped received 12 May 2025), and notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 2 to Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), the site shall not be further subdivided. iii) There shall be no more than one booking per hour. a) For an individual booking there shall be no more than six dogs in attendance. b) Any group bookings or shared individual bookings of the dog walking area hereby permitted shall not exceed two vehicles or six dogs, whichever is the greater, for any session. No more than three of these group or shared individual booking sessions shall take place in any one day on the site. c) A written record shall be kept of all the bookings made on site which, on request, shall be made available for inspection by the Local Planning Authority within 14 days of any written request. The written record shall include the name of the booking (owners' names and dog or dogs), contact details (phone number and/or email), vehicle registration number, session time and date. Each written site record shall be held for two rolling calendar years. A 'group booking' and a 'shared individual booking' are, for the purposes of this condition, defined as two or more users taking part in that session. A user is - for the purposes of this condition - an individual booking to the site with one vehicle together with any other people who travel with them in the same vehicle.

The appeal is made against the grant of planning permission with conditions. On my visit I observed that the dog walking facility was in operation. The condition in dispute relates to condition 3, specifically clause iii). The condition stipulates that any group bookings or shared individual bookings of the dog walking area shall not exceed four dogs. The appellant has appealed this condition on the basis that they want this restriction raised to six dogs.

Whilst the condition has elements relating to highway safety, the main issue for the appeal relates to increasing the number of dogs which is a matter effecting the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties.

On this basis, the main issue is whether condition 3 is reasonable, necessary, precise and enforceable in the interests of ensuring suitable living conditions for the adjacent residential occupiers.

The appeal site comprises a fenced and maintained grassed area set adjacent to and served by an access from [address], an A-classified road. Either side of the appeal site and on the opposite side of the road are residential properties.

The proposal has introduced a potential source of noise and disturbance to the living conditions of the surrounding occupiers from the barking of dogs. The principle of a condition restricting the number of dogs present at the site is therefore reasonable and necessary to ensure that the operation of the site does not lead to undue noise and disturbance to the living conditions of these neighbours.

However, in the first instance, whilst condition 3 restricts group bookings to four dogs, it does not impose a limit on the number of dogs which can be brought to the site under a single booking. Therefore, the condition is not effective in ensuring the living conditions of the surrounding neighbours are safeguarded from undue noise and disturbance as the condition lacks precision and enforceability for single bookings which undermines its effectiveness.

As part of their evidence, the Council provided amended wording for a condition which would address this flaw and would impose a limit on the number of dogs which could be present on the site for both single and group bookings. The appellant did not object to the principle of this condition1 and I am satisfied that it is precisely drafted to be enforceable relating to the number of dogs present at the site for both single and group bookings.

In regard to raising the maximum number of dogs present at the site to six in single and group bookings, I have not been presented with any technical information from either party showing the likely noise and disturbance generated by up to six dogs at the site. I also do not have any technical evidence before me showing specifically why the Council originally restricted the number of dogs to four for group bookings. In addition, the Council has also not objected to the principle of six dogs being present at the site at one time2.

On my visit, I observed that there was considerable noise generated by the traffic on [address] which provided an elevated background sound level, where the noise generated by a modest number of dogs at the site would unlikely be notable above this traffic. In addition, the conditions imposed by the planning permission, including the proposed revised condition 3, would restrict the operation of the site both in terms of length of the bookings and hours of operation which would limit the overall exposure of the surrounding neighbours, particularly during unsociable hours when the site would not be operational.

On this basis, the evidence does not show that allowing up to six dogs at the site, compared to the consented four, would result in an adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby neighbours. Therefore, it is reasonable to delete the existing condition 3 and substitute it with a replacement condition, with the substitute 1 Email dated 06 May 2026 2 Email dated 18 May 2026 condition being precisely worded to ensure it is enforceable for single and group bookings for up to six dogs.

The replacement condition would ensure that the proposal would comply with Policies SPO13 and WCS14 of the Wealden Core Strategy Local Plan (2013), and saved Policies EN27 and TR3 of the Wealden Local Plan (1998). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure proposals encourage high quality living environments, not result in unacceptable adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining developments by reason of noise and approve applications that accord with the development plan.

The disputed condition was also imposed in the interest of highway safety by restricting the number of vehicle movements. The substitute condition retains the elements of the original condition relating to highway safety and vehicle movements. The substitute condition would therefore continue to ensure the safety of road users and would be reasonable and necessary in this regard.

The Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC) are subject to statutory protection under the Habitats Regulations.

In relation to the SAC the qualifying features include the [name] wet heaths and European dry heaths habitats and Great crested newt species. The SAC is vulnerable from an increase in traffic emissions.

In relation to the SPA, the evidence shows that an increase in residential development within the 7km zone of influence would result in a likely significant effect to the protected site in combination with other plans and projects through additional recreational disturbance.

The Council undertook a screening assessment at the planning application stage and concluded that there would be no likely significant effects, either alone or in combination on the SPA and SAC. This was on the basis of the site falling outside of the 7km zone of influence in relation to the SPA and the evidence produced for the now withdrawn emerging Wealden Local Plan (2019) demonstrating that the quantum of growth proposed would not result in an overall adverse effect on the SAC. I have no reason to disagree with these findings based on the evidence before me, and concur that there would be no likely significant effect of the proposal on the SPA and SAC either alone or in combination.

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