Appeal 6007108

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted at appeal1 for change of use of an agricultural field to a dog exercise area. This permission is subject to a condition (No.7) restricting the hours within which dogs are permitted to use the field.

The appellant submitted a Section 73 (S73) application to vary this condition to allow dogs to access the field between the hours of 08:00 – 20:00 Monday to Sunday (including [name]) between 1 April to 31 October; and between the hours of 08:00 – 16:00 Monday to Sunday (including [name]) between 1 November and 31 March. This S73 application was refused by the Council and is the subject of this appeal. 1 APP/A0665/W/23/3319849

A revised ‘[name] has been provided with the appeal documents and this requests that consideration be given to revised hours of 08:00 – 18:00 Monday to Sunday (including [name]) between 1 April to 31 October as part of the appeal.

The procedural guidance2 however explains that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same proposal that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage.

Moreover, the suggested hours within the revised ‘[name] do not only differ from those submitted to the Council as part of the S73 application but also do not align with the hours3 being sought within the appellant’s own Statement of Case. As such, there is some ambiguity within the appellant’s own submissions as to exactly what hours they are proposing as part of this appeal.

Given this ambiguity, and having regard to case law, I am mindful that the Council and interested parties may not be aware that amended hours have been suggested within this supporting document. Consequently, they may not have had the opportunity to make representations on any potential impacts arising from this amendment.

In view of all the above, I cannot be certain that accepting these alternative hours within the revised ‘[name] would not be prejudicial to the Council and interested parties. I have therefore determined the appeal against the hours considered by the Council when it made its decision and those as detailed within the appellant’s Statement of Case submitted in support of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed variation of the condition on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance.

The appeal relates to a field located within a rural area. The field includes several pieces of equipment for dog exercising and is enclosed on all boundaries by timber post and metal wire fencing, with some of the boundaries reinforced with hedging.

Whilst the wider area is predominantly characterised by large agricultural fields, there are a number of residential properties within the vicinity of the appeal site, located to the north, south and west.

During my visit there were no dogs using the field and the predominant noises I heard were bird songs and the occasional noise from an aeroplane flying overhead. I found the location to be quiet and tranquil, typical of its rural setting, and it is therefore not unreasonable for existing residents to expect peace and quiet within their properties, and outdoor amenity areas, particularly in the evening and at weekends / [name].

The appeal proposal would represent a significant and noticeable extension in the hours of operation in comparison to those imposed by the previous Inspector. The 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 (updated 18 February 2026) 3 Detailed at paragraph 2.4 proposal would therefore increase the hours and times that nearby residents would be subjected to noise from the appeal site and result in a more intrusive and harmful impact upon occupiers of these nearby residential properties, including how they experience and enjoy their properties and outdoor spaces. This would be particularly harmful in the summer months when nearby occupiers would likely have their property windows open, and/or have a desire to sit out within their outdoor amenity areas.

In coming to this view, I note the appellant states that prior to planning permission being granted they operated with longer hours than those currently permitted and since the use began only one complaint has been received. An interested party however states that when the use operated outside its current hours, prior to planning permission being granted, extensive complaints and objections were raised.

Moreover, a number of interested parties have also stated that noise from the use within the permitted hours of operation currently causes significant disturbance and harm to their living conditions. Some of these representations go on to explain that they do not complain about the existing noise and disturbance because they accept and acknowledge that the hours within which the use currently operates are permitted. It is however the proposed extension of the hours of operation, and the noises associated with the use, into the evenings and for longer at the weekend, which is of concern to these interested parties.

As such, and based on the information before me, whilst the appellant’s claim that only one complaint has been received is acknowledged, the numerous interested parties raising concerns over the existing levels of noise that are experienced during the permitted hours of use are a material consideration in my consideration of this appeal.

Furthermore, I find noise associated with the use of this field as a dog exercise area, such as from dogs barking, would be unpredictable, as some dogs will bark, and others will not. Moreover, dog barks themselves vary in pitch with some dog barks being more audible than others, and the dog’s location within the field would also influence how these noises are heard and experienced by neighbouring residents.

Additionally, interested parties have also commented on being disturbed by owner’s shouts and dog whistles. Again, there would be an element of randomness to these noises, as some owners may not shout at all or use a whistle, whereas others may do so.

I therefore find that it is the intermittency and inconsistency of these noises which is likely to disturb nearby residents, as there will inevitably be periods of quiet, followed abruptly by a period of random dog barking, shouting or whistling. With the hours as imposed by the previous Inspector, neighbouring residents are aware of the time frames within which they are likely to be disturbed by such noises, and these are mainly during the working day and on a Saturday morning.

As such, neighbouring residents are currently afforded a respite from these noises arising during the evenings, for large parts of Saturday and all day on Sunday. The proposed extension to the hours of operation would significantly reduce the periods at which neighbouring occupiers would have relief from any barking dogs, as well as other associated noises generated, at the site.

In this regard, I note the appellant has commented that modern working patterns limit the times that people can exercise their dogs, meaning that evenings and weekends are important periods for the business and customers. However, these same working patterns would also likely be true for existing nearby residents. Therefore, evenings and weekends are periods when residents would most likely expect to enjoy peace and quiet within their properties and outside amenity areas.

I acknowledge the appeal submission includes a [name] Assessment4 (NIA) that was undertaken in April 2022. [name] uses LAeq,5min measurements to assess the impact of the proposal. However, I am not persuaded that this fully represents the impulsivity, intermittency and other characteristics of noise from dogs barking and other activity associated with the proposal; particularly in the evening and at weekends when nearby residents can expect a reasonable degree of peace and quiet. Although there may be other noise sources at those times, I do not consider that these will have the same characteristics or occur over the same length of time as noise resulting from the appeal proposal.

I note the appellant’s NIA concludes that the sound from the dog exercise field falls below the [name] as detailed in the Noise Policy Statement for England5 (NPSE). However, for the reasons outlined earlier, I find the proposal would likely have a significant harmful impact upon the health and quality of life of neighbouring occupiers, by limiting their enjoyment of outdoor amenity spaces and potentially requiring them to close windows during summer evenings, and at weekends, when the field is in use. I therefore find that the proposal would result in a [name], within the terms of the NPSE, on nearby occupiers.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the proposed extension to the hours of operation would result in significant adverse harm to the living conditions of nearby residents by way of additional noise and disturbance in the evenings and for longer periods over the weekend. Consequently the proposal would be contrary to Policy SOC 5 of the [name] and Chester Council Local Plan ([name]) [name] (2015) (LP1) and [name] 2 and DM 30 of [name] and Chester Local Plan ([name]) [name] and [name] (2019) (LP2), which amongst other things, seek to ensure that development does not give rise to significant adverse impacts on the health and quality of life of nearby residents, by having regard to matters including noise.

The proposal is also considered to be contrary to paragraph 135(f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users.

It is claimed that an agricultural use of the appeal site could generate similar noise disturbance to nearby residents. However, I have very limited information before me to demonstrate the noise levels that could be generated from agricultural uses, or how they would compare with noises generated from the use of the field for dog exercising.

I am cognisant that hedging has been planted around parts of the boundary of the field. However, and again, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate how this hedging would prevent noise disturbance for nearby occupiers. 4 Prepared by Philip Dunbavin Acoustics Ltd (Dated 8 April 2022) 5 Noise Policy Statement for England (Department for Environment, Food and [name], 2010)

The appellant also states that the appeal site allows banned dog breeds and the current restriction on hours is forcing customers to travel further to other dog exercise areas. I have limited information before me to demonstrate that other dog exercise areas do not allow banned breeds, or any substantive evidence in terms of the distances customers must travel to access other sites outside the times that the appeal site is open.

As such, and in the absence of any substantive evidence in support of the above claims, I attribute these matters limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

The appellant has demonstrated that the site is busy and I am in no doubt that there is demand from customers and dog trainers for the site to be open for longer hours. I also acknowledge that there would be economic benefits associated with longer opening hours. Despite the relatively small scale of the use, I attribute these matters moderate weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

The appellant and an interested party have also advised that the field is used by disabled people. I have therefore had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010. Disability is a relevant protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. These rights are engaged in reaching my decision and I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. However, they are qualified rights and interference may be justified where in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key, and I will return to this matter in my planning balance.

I am aware that the submission includes noise and dog management plans which can be implemented by the appellant to try and reduce the impact of the appeal proposal on neighbouring occupiers. However, these measures are largely reliant upon users adhering to the rules and in circumstances where users don’t abide by these rules any management response would likely be reactive rather than preventive.

Additionally, and as mentioned, a number of interested parties have stated that noise from the site during the existing permitted hours of operation currently causes significant harm to their living conditions, suggesting that the appellant’s management plans are not alleviating or preventing all sources of unnacceptable noise and disturbance associated with the use of the field. I therefore attribute limited weight to these management plans.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several appeal decisions relating to the hours of operation for other dog exercise areas, or dog related uses. However, each appeal must be judged on its own merits based on the site-specific circumstances and I do not have all the details before me in respect of these other cases.

Nevertheless, having read the decision letters, I note that the appeal at Pudsey 6 was allowed with hours of operation restricted to between 10:30 -11:30 and 13:30 – 14:30 Monday to Friday only. Additionally, the appeal at Holbeach Drove7 limited the number of training sessions to a total of 10 hours a week, with the exception of 2x 3- day training camps per year. In the Leyland8 case, I note the Inspector granted temporary planning permission for a period of 18 months, and with hours of operation that are more restrictive to those being sought as part of this appeal. As such, I find those appeal decisions are not comparable with the appeal proposal before me. 6 APP/N4720/W/19/3244527 7 APP/A2525/W/21/3288069 8 APP/D2320/W/23/3323509

With regard to the appeal at Barnham9, from reading the decision letter I note that appeal site immediately adjoined a customer car park serving a shopping village which according to the Inspector “...supports a wide range of businesses providing various services and trades which include dog grooming, dog ‘day care’ and pet supplies”. The Inspector goes on to detail that “Comings, goings and related manoeuvring by vehicles generate a reasonably high level of noise, particularly on account of the loose surfacing of the car park.” Consequently, and based on the limited information before me, I find that appeal site is not directly comparable to the site before me, in terms of the surrounding uses and activities.

Turning to the appeal at Cuddington10, the Inspector in that decision letter specifically refers to the appeal site before me at paragraph 14, stating “...the relationship between residential properties and the site within that appeal do not appear to be identical given that the land appears much more open between the appeal site and residential dwellings”.

As such, in allowing the Cuddington appeal the Inspector clearly identified the differences between that site and the appeal site before me in terms of the relationship they share with surrounding residential dwellings. Based on the information before me, I find the two sites are therefore not directly comparable.

The appellant’s submission also makes reference to an appeal at [name] Farm11. [name] have no substantive evidence before me to compare that appeal proposal with the current appeal scheme, I note that within the decision letter the Inspector refers to the “substantial distance” between the training fields and the nearest residential properties. Based on my observations on site, I do not consider that the field subject of this appeal is a substantial distance from the nearest residential properties. Furthermore, in that appeal the Inspector comments that the site has a “lengthy and complex planning history”, of which I am not familiar with. As such, I cannot be sure that the circumstances in that appeal are directly comparable to those before me.

The appellant’s final comments also refer to an appeal decision12. I have not however been provided with a copy of this decision, but the appellant states the Inspector concluded that barking and verbal commands would not give rise to a material level of disturbance where activity was controlled and appropriately separated from neighbouring properties. Be that as it may, I have very limited detail before me in respect of that appeal proposal and its relationship to neighbouring properties to enable me to make any direct comparisons with the current appeal scheme.

In view of the above, based on the information before me in respect of these other appeal decisions referenced by the appellant, I cannot draw any direct comparisons between those allowed appeals and the current appeal proposal. This therefore limits the weight I attribute to those decisions in my consideration of this appeal, which I have determined based on the evidence before me and my own observations on site.

The appellant has also drawn my attention to the hours of operation of a number of other dog exercise areas. However, I have very limited information before me in 9 APP/C3810/W/18/3214454 10 APP/A0665/W/24/3355140 11 APP/K2420/A/13/2197085 12 APP/J0215/A/05/1195676 respect of the planning history of these other sites or their specific relationship with neighbouring residential properties. I therefore attribute these other sites very limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

For the reasons given, I have found that the proposed extension to the hours of operation would result in significant adverse harm to the living conditions of nearby residents by way of additional noise and disturbance in the evenings and for longer periods at weekends. The proposal therefore conflicts with LP1 Policy SOC 5 and LP2 [name] 2 and DM 30, as well as the provisions of the Framework which seeks to ensure developments provide a high standard of amenity for existing users. I find the harm arising from this conflict to be significant.

[name] have acknowledged there would be some benefits arising from the proposal, I conclude that these benefits do not outweigh the significant harm I have identified in respect of the proposal’s harmful impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to my duty to acknowledge the PSED’s objective of advancing equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. However, the harm arising from the proposal outweighs the benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of disability, as I find that there will likely be opportunities for disabled people to exercise their dogs at other facilities, or within the existing hours of operation at the appeal site, without causing the harms identified. I consider that it is therefore proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations to justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed and it is necessary for the condition to be retained in its present form.