Agenda item

Recommendation: Conditional approval

Proposal: Full application for the change of use of agricultural paddock with proposed shed and part of private woodland to commercial land to be used for the provision of dog walking services. (Retrospective)

Applicant: Mr G Capes

The Committee considered a report about this application, set out in agenda pages 79 to 108.

The Committee were advised that there were no updates contained within the Supplementary Planning Agenda.

Brian Bidston, resident, spoke in objection to the application. Brian stated that whilst the application was referred to as for dog walking, this usually referred to individuals going into a field with up to 6 dogs. Brian was of the opinion that the dogs were being picked up, mostly from Camberley, and transported in lorries. The dogs were then moved through woodland around a blocked pathway. Brian stated that his main concern was one of safety, as people working on the adjacent farm would be working in close proximity to the site. Brian quoted the recommendations of the British Dog Fields Association, via which the existence of 27 dogs and only three handlers was inherently dangerous. Brian stated that there was originally a 1.5m high mesh fence to be installed as part of a previous application, however this application had been withdrawn. The subsequent application included a 1.2m high mesh fence, however this element of the application was removed after the consultation period as the existence of the agricultural fence was thought to be adequate. Brian asked that if the application be approved, a 1.5m-1.8m fence be conditioned as recommended by the British Dog Fields Association.

David Pearce, agent, spoke in support of the application. David stated that the dogs arrived at the site in a van onto the owner’s land, with no access to the sports field. The van was parked next to a holding pen whereby the dogs were then moved into the holding pen and then taken towards the footpath. David added that once the dogs reached the footpath the applicant had installed a gate either side of the footpath, to be used whilst the dogs were moved into a further holding pen. The dogs then proceed to cross a field, again owned by the applicant, to the middle field where they are then cared for by the dog walkers. David stated that at no time during this process is there any public interaction. David added that he had witnessed 18 dogs being walked by the public along the footpath over a number of hours, with 16 off the lead and some barking or being out of control. David felt that this was normal behaviour and did not pose a concern. David raised concern over the rights of the public to walk their dogs on the applicant’s land should this application be refused. David stated that this application provided an essential service to care for and look after dogs whilst people worked, went to school, went to an appointment or travelled on holiday. David added that the dog walking activity was primarily restricted to private land, with no public interaction, whilst the application would benefit the general community. David concluded by stating that the application was sound regarding its planning merits, and licensing would cover concerns raised by objectors.

David Cornish queried the operating hours of the service. Marcus Watts, case officer, stated that the hours of operation would be from 10.30am until 2.30pm, Monday to Thursday, which was the same as the current operation of the site.

David Cornish stated that the ‘right of way’ referred to was in fact owned by the Parish Council and leased to the memorial hall playing fields. Whilst the applicant had permission to cross that land, it was not a right of way. David queried whether vehicles would be required to park and turn on the applicant’s land, queried why additional fencing was not being implemented given this was a very well used footpath, and sought clarity regarding the proposed change of use from agricultural to commercial land. Marcus Watts confirmed that vehicles would have to be parked in their designated area, as secured by condition. With regards to fencing, Marcus stated that this fell under environmental protection regulations and was not a material planning consideration. Marcus added that paragraph 16 of the officer report explained why it was not felt appropriate to erect such a fence in a rural setting. Brian Conlon, Operational Lead – Development Management, stated that there were many types of commercial use, and agricultural use was a type of commercial use and was usually considered the ‘default’ use. Brian added that this application represented a sustainable rural enterprise according to policy. Brian confirmed that planning permission was required to change the classification from agricultural to commercial land, and should the business cease, the land would not become a different type of commercial, however another dog walking business could in theory operate on the land immediately after this business ceased. Wider commercial uses, which were not dog walking, would require planning permission in their own right.

Rebecca Margetts sought reassurance in relation to the licensing of the site, and raised concern that the dogs could get underneath the existing agricultural fencing. Brian Conlon stated that the planning system did not insist on regulating other aspects of the use of the site as this would result in duplication with the licensing process, which would take precedence in any case. In relation to fencing, Brian stated that public rights of way were designed for a range of users, and to insist of infrastructure for one particular user type could set precedent and it was not for the planning system to base such a requirement on the use of the land without a technical understanding of what was safe, or not safe.

Stephen Conway commented that safety issues sat outside of the remit of the Planning Committee, whilst access was a civil matter. Stephen queried whether there was any precedent that could be established by changing the use of the site from agricultural land to commercial land. Brian Conlon confirmed that no precedent would be set, as the description of development referred to use of dog walking services.

David Cornish commented that he had a lot of sympathy for the applicant, and felt that sustainable commercial ventures should be encouraged. David questioned whether a condition could be implemented to require the land to revert back to agricultural should the dog walking business cease operation.

Wayne Smith sought clarity regarding the significance of describing the paddocks as 1, 2, 3 and 4, and queried the relation of the application site and the nearby church conservation area. Marcus Watts confirmed that each of the paddocks was owned by the applicant, and were named as such as the site had historically housed sheep. Marcus added that the site fell outside of the conservation area, which at its closest point was approximately 70m away.

Wayne Smith commented that such enterprises were opening up across the Borough, and conditioning for such sites needed to be proportionate and consistent. Wayne added that such sites could pose problems for planning enforcement as they were usually located in quiet areas away from frequent public view.

Stephen Conway proposed an additional informative, expressing the Committee’s request regarding the need to ensure that safety concerns were properly addressed via the assessment of the license for the site. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh, carried, and added to the list of informatives.

Stephen Conway proposed that the application be approved, subject to the officer recommendation and additional informative as resolved by the Committee. This was seconded by Andrew Mickleburgh.

RESOLVED That application number 222805 be approved subject to conditions and informatives as set out in agenda page 88, and additional informative regarding the need to ensure that safety concerns were properly addressed via the assessment of the license for the site as resolved by the Committee.