Appeal 6004768

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Lichfield District Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

The description of the development in the banner heading above was taken from the application form. However, in their decision notice the Council described it as change of use of land to create a dog walking field and associated works and this more accurately reflects the appeal proposal, therefore I have determined it on that basis.

The site is within the catchment area of the River Mease Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This is a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations). Whilst not discussed by the Council in their decision report, as competent authority I must consider whether the development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is in a sustainable location for the proposed use, having particular regard to the likely means of travel by future users to access the proposed development; • whether the proposed access arrangements and on-site parking provision would provide for safe operation of the development.

The site forms part of a field currently in agricultural use between the settlements of [site address] and [name]. The nearest of which is [site address] approximately 1.5 kilometres away. The appeal site is separate from any residential area from which future users would be drawn and therefore would create a stand-alone destination in the countryside. The appellant’s evidence indicates that the proposed dog walking field would be operated by allowing future users to book hourly sessions between 07.00am and 08.00pm. As such the appeal proposal would generate a significant increase in daily traffic using the site access, beyond any generated by agricultural use, noting that it was apparent from my site visit that access for agricultural use is possible via other fields in the appellant’s ownership.

No accessible public transport options have been drawn to my attention. Furthermore, the road is unlit, without footways or cycle infrastructure and subject to a sixty miles per hour speed limit. For these reasons, future users of the proposed development would be reliant on private motor vehicles to access the appeal site.

The appellant asserts that the appeal proposal represents farm diversification that requires a countryside location. The Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008- 2029 (Adopted 17 February 2015) (the Local Plan) supports development which would assist in delivering diverse and sustainable farming enterprises and other countryside based activities which promote the recreation and enjoyment of the countryside. In particular, Policy Rural 1 in the Local Plan indicates that rural employment and diversification will be supported where it accords with Core Policy 7 concerning employment and economic development. [name] 7 supports economic development and diversification of the rural economy where proposals do not conflict with other Local Plan policies.

Accordingly, these policies need to be considered against the strategic policies in the Local Plan which seek to ensure that development proposals promote sustainability including by reducing the need to travel. Taking account of the appeal proposal’s significant reliance on access by private motor vehicle, it does not address these policy requirements regarding reducing the need to travel and widen travel choices.

I acknowledge that the Council’s Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document (December 2015) (Rural Development SPD) supports rural diversification, such as small scale energy creation, the reuse of buildings in the countryside, tourism and recreation and leisure uses. However, it advises that a careful balance needs to be achieved when considering new development in rural areas, and it does not disapply the Council’s development plan policies when considering such developments.

Dog walking facilities plainly need locations capable of providing sufficient space, but it is not a use that inherently needs to be in a countryside location separated from any built up area. Drawing these matters together, while the proposal may support diversification of a farming business it would create a destination where future users would be almost entirely reliant on travel by private motor vehicle. As such it would not be in a sustainable location for the proposed use, having particular regard to the likely means of travel by future users to access the proposed development.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with policies, CP1, CP3, CP5 and ST1 of the Local Plan in so far as they expect proposals to amongst other things, reduce the need to travel, while optimising choice of sustainable modes of travel, as well as widening travel choices, and reducing the impact of travel upon the environment.

Access to the appeal site would be from a classified road across the verge and through existing field gates approximately nine metres wide. The Council’s decision notice indicates concerns that the appeal proposals do not show the access and off road parking details nor how acceptable visibility splays can be achieved. However, the submitted highway authority appeal statement states that acceptable visibility splays can be achieved.

The appellant’s evidence indicates that the access is adequate for two vehicles to pass, and from my observations on site I have no reason to disagree. Between the carriageway and the site is a grass verge which slopes down towards the site. The Council is concerned this is an inappropriate surface particularly on a gradient which could make turning manoeuvres unsafe. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that this could not be addressed through the imposition of appropriately worded conditions requiring construction of an access in accordance with an approved scheme to deal with width, radii, surfacing and gradient, should planning permission be granted. Pedestrians would be able to use the same access, although for the reasons noted above, it is unlikely that a significant number of future users would access the appeal site on foot.

The plans show an area for off road turning and parking, and details of that area including its surfacing, provision for cycle parking and enclosure to ensure safe transfer of users and dogs to the operational dog walking area could be required by condition should planning permission be granted.

For these reasons, I conclude that proposed access arrangements and on-site parking provision would provide for safe operation of the development. Accordingly there would not be conflict with policy ST1 of the Local Plan in so far as it only permits traffic generating development where it takes account of access and egress to the public highway and highway safety, nor with policy ST2 of the Local Plan with regard to its requirement that appropriate provision is made for off-street parking in development proposals.

The Council referred to policies CP3 and CP5 with regard to this matter. However, those policies do not directly address access and parking and therefore do not specifically assist me in my determination of this main issue.

The appellant’s ecology report noted that the appeal site lies within 730 metres of the [name] which is both a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). However, it went on to state that it would be unlikely for the development to have a significant adverse effect on any statutory sites due to the small scale of the proposed project, the distance from any designated sites and the lack of any linking feature. The Council’s ecology consultee stated that they considered the appellant’s ecological evidence to be robust and appropriate to the scale of the proposed development. However, they did not comment on the designated sites.

In order to grant permission, the competent authority must be satisfied that the proposal would not have a likely significant effect on a European Designated Site, either alone or in combination. Notwithstanding the assertions referred to above, the information before me is insufficiently detailed for me as the competent authority in respect of this appeal to reach that conclusion. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not sought further information or conducted any further assessment.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other appeal decisions1 concerning dog walking fields, and I have had regard to them. However, they are not directly comparable to this appeal as they mainly deal with suitability of the appeal proposals in the green belt, and do not address locational sustainability, which will vary between sites in any event. The appellant has also referred to determinations of planning applications for dog walking fields by other councils. The full details of these applications are not before me, and they are of limited relevance to my determination as they would have been decided in respect of the particular circumstances and planning policies relating to them.

I have also considered the comments about other applications for dog paddocks decided by the Council or nearby Councils, which the appellant asserts show that this type of development has been found acceptable on sites outside settlements. Extracts of reports and highways consultee comments have been provided in the evidence before me. I have considered these, however on the information before me I am not able to draw direct comparisons between those applications and the appeal site, taking account of their locations relative to settlements, their accessibility, and existing uses. Accordingly, they have limited relevance to my determination of this appeal.

I have also noted the appellant’s comments about the Council’s and the Highway Authority’s handling of the proposals. However, I have considered the evidence provided by all parties and determined the appeal on its merits accordingly.

Although the Local Plan includes policies supportive of proposals for farm diversification, they fall to be considered against the development plan as a whole. In this case, I am satisfied that an acceptable access and off‐road parking provision could be achieved and so these matters are neutral in my consideration. Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, the site would not be in a sustainable location. The proposal is therefore contrary to the development plan when taken as a whole.

Paragraphs 88 and 89 The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicate national support for the diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses, and for sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments. They also acknowledge that, in rural areas, sites to meet local business and community needs may sometimes be found in locations that are not well served by public 1 Planning Inspectorate references: 3264866; 3313040 transport. That support is a material consideration which weighs in favour of the proposal.

However, that support sits within the Framework’s overarching objective of achieving sustainable development and does not displace the importance it places on directing development to sustainable locations and reducing reliance on the private car. In this case, I have already found that the appeal site is not a sustainable location for the proposed use and that it would lead to a predominantly car‐borne pattern of trips, creating a stand‐alone destination in the countryside with limited realistic scope for access by a choice of travel modes. Consequently, while paragraphs 88 and 89 provide some support in principle, that support carries modest weight in the circumstances of this appeal and does not outweigh the identified conflict with the development plan policies concerning the location of development and the reduction of private car travel when the plan is read as a whole.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan read as whole and the material considerations are not of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.