Agenda item

To determine the application.

Danielle Brooke presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a written representation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Robert Horsepool, an objector, read out by Member Services. Mr Horsepool stated in relation to outdoor recreation that the application is for a dog exercise park, 200 metres to the west of the park is Black Dyke and the entry to at least 6 miles of public footpaths and bridleways providing exercise for both humans and their dogs. He made the point that most local people know of these free exercise routes and lots of people use them daily and from conversations with locals while out walking all will continue to use the free local open spaces.

Mr Horsepool made the point that with regard to actively farmed Grade 1 farmland, this modified grassland forms part of the Government’s SPI payment scheme, where a farm may put aside a percentage of total land down to grassland and can claim a payment for doing so, with there being rules on cutting and maintaining, so although it may not look like it is being farmed it provides a high biodiversity net gain that would be lost by converting this Grade 1 farmland. He stated that the original application also stated that the exercise park was being built on existing stubble land, but, in this view, this is incorrect and is actually onto the grassland, which helped with showing an increase in net gain calculation instead of a negative result of biodiversity net gain by the agent and could be misleading information.

Mr Horsepool expressed the opinion that it would be hard not to put this application in a position with any more visual impact as the applicant has a large area of modified grassland and some of that area has hedgerows and trees which would have been more suited to this project to also provide screening and shelter as well as better road access and this was also noted by the Parish Council. He referred to Policy LP15 which states safe and convenient access, but, in his view, the single track lane has many dog walkers and children/families out on bikes, with it being a national speed limit road with no passing places and increased traffic of up to 6 cars per session would be a risk as these visitors will probably be from outside the village and not be familiar with the area.

Mr Horsepool referred to biodiversity gain and feels that the agent may have not visited the site as this is not crop stubble land and has not been so for a few years so, in his view, this report may be inaccurate. He acknowledged that although loss of views is not part of planning, loss of privacy is and the entry to the development is 68 metres form Sorrento to the south west not 83 metres but the south west corner of the development is less than 20 metres from Sorrento with both sitting rooms windows facing north east looking directly over the car park and requested, if the development is approved, that a clause be added that the south west corner 20 metres and southern edge to the entry gate be enclosed by a 2.4 metre high solid wood panel fence as the field is low compared to road height, which would not preserve privacy.

Mr Horsepool expressed the view that the oak trees to the east have a large Rookery and Pigeon population and when crops are first planted both fields have had bird scarers to keep Pigeons and Rooks off the newly emerging crops, which sound like 2 shotgun blasts every 30 minutes 2 seconds apart. He feels that, with the many complaints about noise scaring dogs, this may also cause concern, as this is first and foremost a farming area and the applicant also uses bird scarer bangers to the fields to the north west where up until last week 7 scarers were set up protecting a crop so they would be aware about the problems of this area in this regard and it should be of note.

Mr Horsepool expressed the opinion that these types of projects are normally restricted to Grade 3 agricultural land along with solar projects etc., which keeps Grades 1 and 2 land in agriculture as set out in the NPPF and in Policy LP12. He does not think that this has been achieved and together with the inaccurate biodiversity report these need to be taken into consideration. 

Mr Horsepool expressed the view that if approved a biodiversity net gain of 10% to open farmland would be hard to archive without the planting of a lot of hedgerows and trees, with the loss of wild modified grassland for paddock grass, car parking and cars being a considerable loss for biodiversity net gain to start with. He feels that if these must be maintained for 30 years before returning the land to farmland if the project failed it would take 30 years and not be overnight, with the committee having to decide if the development is sustainable and does in fact meet the NPPF.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Lewis Smith, the agent. Mr Smith stated that following the COVID pandemic there has been a significant rise in the number of dog paddocks established around the country where both private individuals and professional dog walkers can exercise their dogs safely. He continued that the applicant established his first such paddock on the outskirts of Long Sutton and this has now operated successfully since July 2023.

Mr Smith expressed the view that bookings for the proposed paddock would be made online and users will be given a code to the gate at the entrance into the site to then use the facility for the prepaid period. He added that the site will be open every day of the year and subject to booking in advance, with the proposed opening hours being 7am to 10pm, 7 days a week but this will be limited by daylight hours as no lighting is proposed.

Mr Smith stated that users will be able to hire the field for 50-minute time slots with a 10-minute buffer in between each slot to allow a changeover and there will be up to 6 dogs allowed on site during any one session. He added that experience of other similar facilities shows that the majority of users have 1-2 dogs per session, but a maximum of 6 dogs will cater for professional dog walkers and people who wish to meet up.

Mr Smith drew members attention to the proposed conditions 8 and 9 of the officer’s report, which, amongst other things, limits the operating hours and the number of dogs on site at any one time. He stated that a car park for user’s vehicles will be provided together with turning space to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear.

Mr Smith stated that, on arrival, users will be required to secure the outer gates in a closed position before removing their dogs from the vehicle and, on departure, users will again be required to secure their dogs in the vehicles before opening the gates to depart, they will then be required to ensure the gate is then closed to prevent unauthorised access. He added that a small wooden shed will provide shelter for the users during periods of inclement weather.

Mr Smith expressed the view that the operation of the site is strictly controlled, and users will effectively sign up to the management plan terms and conditions when a booking is made. He continued that a dedicated website and Facebook page will be set up whereby bookings can be made and any comments and complaints can be aired.

Mr Smith stated that users will be required to clean up after their dogs and deposit any waste in bins that will be provided on site, which will then be emptied regularly by the management team. He added that an abbreviated reminder of noise management and consideration of neighbours is highlighted online at the time when a booking is made, also on the customer’s booking receipt email and a third time on the customer’s booking reminder email, which is received 2 hours before their allotted time slot.

Mr Smith made the point that anyone who does not abide by the rules and regulations of the facility will not be allowed to book future sessions, and it is in the applicant’s own interest to ensure that the site is properly managed and operated otherwise customers will go elsewhere. He expressed the opinion that the proposal represents a form of rural diversification, which is an appropriate use in the open countryside.

Mr Smith expressed the view that the importance of access to recreational open space is recognised as being an important factor contributing to the mental health and wellbeing of people involved. He feels there is little impact arising from the proposal, which will be well managed much like the applicant’s other similar facility on the edge of Long Sutton, and the application has been the subject of positive pre-application advice from officers, and he is grateful for their assistance in shaping the proposal.

Mr Smith hoped that members would be able to support the officer’s recommendation and grant planning permission.

Members asked questions of Mr Smith as follows:

·       Councillor Benney asked if this was Grade 1 agricultural land the proposal is being placed on? Mr Smith confirmed that it was.

·       Councillor Gerstner asked for confirmation that there will be somebody on site to manage it from opening to closing? Mr Smith responded that bookings are made online and the site operates remotely, with users given a combination code to allow access to the site and that is how every dog paddock they have dealt with operate.

·       Councillor Gerstner questioned the safety of people using the site, there would be no CCTV present for health and safety of the animals or people? Mr Smith confirmed this to be correct and that this is no different to someone taking their dog for a walk down the nearest towpath or across a field.

·       Councillor Imafidon asked about provisions for any potential noise complaints and how these would be dealt with? Mr Smith responded that on the applicant’s first site in Long Sutton he operates a very active Facebook page and is keen to engage with the local community so if there are any complaints and with the widespread use of social media those complaints would be soon heard and the applicant would react to them accordingly. He added that if there are repeated infringement of the rules and regulations those people will not be invited back, with it being within the applicant’s interest to ensure the site operates well as people would go elsewhere.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to nobody being on site and that dog owners will pick up their own mess, but if they do not pick up their own mess how is it going to be proved who was responsible? Mr Smith responded that there are two ways, if the person who has left the dog mess when the management team come in and look at the bins to clean up the dog mess if there is stuff lying around they will have that days number of bookings, but it is more likely that if the next user see that any mess has been left behind they will then report it to the management team, with the management team interrogating the booking system and find out who was there beforehand. He acknowledged that it is not foolproof, but it has worked successfully on the applicant’s other site.

·       Councillor Purser asked if there are times and restrictions on the types of dogs that are using the site? He made the point that it is said that it is not normally the dogs, it is the owners that are problem and if it is not a manned site and there are problems between dogs how would that be managed? Mr Smith responded that invariably the dogs on site belong to one owner and they are able to interrogate the booking system to see what the average number of dogs are that use the site and they tend to be, as set out in the report, between 1-2 dogs per person. He continued that usually it is owners that either know each other and their dogs know each other so they do not get people arriving with dogs that are effectively strangers to each other, where that could cause an issue. Mr Smith added that is why the booking system has a 50-minute time slot with a 10-minute changeover so that dogs do not meet each other, which reduces the likelihood of barking and dogs and owners meeting each other causing issues. He stated that he can only speak from experience that the way these dog parks operate is universally similar and tends to work well.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that it is agricultural land that is now being left as pasture land or similar and asked when this land was last used for agricultural purposes? Mr Smith responded that he is not aware and can only say on the day of the inspection it was not used as agricultural land but made the point that whilst it is Grade 1 agricultural land it still will be Grade 1 agricultural land, there is no land being removed. Councillor Gerstner questioned that in the future it could be turned back into agricultural land if needed? Mr Smith responded quite easily, the applicant is the farmer and farms land around it so in the event that the venture is unsuccessful or they wish to return the land to farming then that is easily achieved as it will only have a little bit of fencing and a very small car park so is easily reversible. Councillor Gerstner stated that most dog owners are fairly responsible, dogs need exercise and he fully supports that. He sees that Newton-in-the-Isle has a population of around 750-800 people so there is probably some sort of footfall here for a need, but he is concerned about the removal of agricultural land.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she notes at 2.3 that the site is in Flood Zone 3 so is not sure whether the field would flood and the dogs would likely end up all muddy, etc. She added that she is concerned about the site being able to be used up to 10pm at night in Summer and is this something that officers could reduce? Danielle Brooke responded that conversations could be had, although it is only during the daylight hours but appreciates that in the Summertime it would likely be up to 10 at night. She made the point that there has been no objection from Environmental Health on this basis and if there are any concerns with Environmental Health impacts there is separate legislation that can deal with this if necessary.

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Benney stated that he does not have any objections to dogs but this is an agricultural area and Grade 1 agricultural land, although it is not being taken out of being agricultural, it is taking it out of food production and according to the media there is a lot of talk about food security in this country, especially with the price of fertilisers going up, and that people should be growing vegetables in their own back garden. He expressed the view that to take this land out for dog walking, if the applicant is a farmer he should stick to what farmers do and whilst he acknowledges that farmers have to diversify, feels that every farmer has some rubbish bit of land that never nothing ever grows on and that would be much better use than this piece of land. Councillor Benney stated that when he visited the site yesterday, he would have said it had wheat in it, it has had something growing in it as it was not just wild grass and this would be taking land out for agricultural purposes. He referred to the nearby proposal for a solar farm and taking land out of food production, whilst this is on a smaller scale it is agricultural land and feels there would be better land that would be suited for this proposal as the committee is looking at land usage and he does not feel this is good use of land.

·       Councillor Mrs French agreed with the comments of Councillor Benney, there are other places that can be used and she does not like the operating time of until 10pm and whilst she acknowledges that it is only when it is light but that could be several months and dog barking does get on people’s nerves. She stated that her biggest concern is the time and the agent did mention about the dog mess being picked up, most dog owners are responsible, but dog fouling occurs all over the District and she cannot support this application.

·       Councillor Imafidon stated he will not be supporting this application based purely on the fact that it is Grade 1 agricultural land and whilst he accepts that whoever is using the facility at a given time will be responsible for their dogs, picking up the mess and ensuring that there is no issue of conflict with dogs, there is a 50-minute time slot and 10-minutes in between and that the operational arrangements are in place, it is just on the fact that it is Grade 1 agricultural land.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he is still open-minded but made the point that it has been stated that it will be stopped by 10pm but he recently had some new neighbours in his road and they were taking their dogs out at different times at night as he works different hours and he was taking his dogs out at 2 or 3am, which is a deterrent for crime in the area and he does not think the 10pm time is an issue.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated he is happy if the land can be put back to agricultural use but as Councillor Benney has said this is an agricultural area and people are living in very challenging times currently. He stated that he likes dogs, although he does not have one himself, and belongs to a dog walking group in Whittlesey. Councillor Gerster expressed the view that the hours of operation can be limited and the gate accessed through limited times, but he cannot get to grips with losing the land from agriculture, whilst appreciating that it can be restore to agriculture, he is uncomfortable with it.

·       Councillor Marks stated he visited the site and it is in the middle of nowhere, there is a dog park in Manea and the committee passed one in Chatteris as well. He made the point that, having grandchildren, there are no toilet facilities, and it is in the middle of nowhere, which is another concern. Councillor Marks agrees with the views on the use of agricultural land, although it can be restored, but it does seem a long way away and environmentally everyone is being told that they should be environmentally friendly but you would need to get into a car to take the dogs here to go for a walk, whereas with Chatteris and Manea you can walk to the dog parks and he does not feel that this is the case here where the majority of people using it will have to travel by vehicle. He stated that on this occasion he is erring on the side of he does not think he will be supporting this application.

·       David Rowen stated that he has a sense of where this application is heading but feels it would be useful for members if they are looking to refuse the application to crystallise what those reasons are and then advice from himself or the Legal Officer can be provided on the veracity of those issues.

·       Councillor Benney referred to reasons to refuse the application and feels it is the loss of agricultural land, it seems a long way from the village and driving to the site is not environmentally friendly with the idea being to take your dog for walk being that you walk it, it is not a passenger in a car. He continued that in terms of the hours, the resident opposite has got his business there and he does not see why there should not be a business here but equally the hours up to 10pm could be negotiated. Councillor Benney reiterated that the main issue is taking agricultural land out of use, with Fenland being an agricultural area and if this was a piece of scrub land it would be different, but, when he visited the site, it had crops on it and that is what should be concentrated on.

·       Councillor Marks added that the facilities around it, it is in the middle of nowhere, and a toilet could have been considered.

·       Councillor Purser referred to his earlier comments about the site being manned for health and safety reasons and he has not seen or heard of any first aid facilities being on site, with a toilet and first aid possibly being essential for this site.

·       The Legal Officer stated that if members want to refuse this, the loss of best and most versatile land is clearly a relevant reason and under remote location it is lack of toilet facilities but then the Council’s Environmental Officer has not objected to the application so it might be a less than convincing reason.

·       Councillor Benny expressed the opinion that the main reason is the loss of agricultural land, with Fenland being an agricultural area and whenever anything is built it affects the street scene and environment, and this is going to affect the street scene and environment with putting a fence around it in the middle of the countryside. He feels that the land could be put back to agricultural use but if that is out of production for several years it will take years to put that land back into Grade 1 agricultural use and he does not feel this is the right place for this proposal.

·       Councillor Gerstner made the point that the Parish Council object on the grounds of the loss of agricultural land, whilst he appreciates it is not material they know the area best as they live there, also commenting on the traffic and highways and he has to take this into consideration.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that traffic is also a concern.

·       David Rowen made the point that the views of the Parish Council are not a material planning consideration, and he would advise members to not give weight to those comments when making a decision. He feels, in terms of some comments around the visual impact, there will be a slight change to the character and appearance of the site given that there will be a fence going around the site but the site is not being developed out as a residential site, which will have a significant and clear change to the character of the area.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed her surprise on the comments of David Rowen about the Parish Council views not being a material planning consideration, bearing in mind that towns and parishes have their own local plan, they know what is going on in their areas and are statutory consultees and if the message goes out to Town and Parish Councils that their views are not being taken into consideration then officers are wasting their time even consulting them in the first place. David Rowen stated that the Council consults Town and Parish Councils and listens to what they say and any issues raised they seek to address but that does not mean that their comments are material when determining a planning application and the committee gives weight to that, which was the inference from what Councillor Gerstner was saying, and the point he was making was that it is for the committee to exercise its own judgement in terms of making a decision on this application or any planning application and not to effectively mimic the view of the Town or Parish Council, which is an established point in case law.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to what the Parish Council did say which is loss of agricultural land and stated that surely this is a material consideration.

·       Councillor Benney asked if officers were looking for one solid reason for refusal or a solid reason with a bit of filling around it? David Rowen responded that given the officer recommendation is to grant the application they would be looking for committee to resolve to approve it but it is the committee’s decision to what they feel are substantive reasons for refusal and what the concerns are, whether this is one reason or two it is reflective of the issues that members see. Councillor Benney made the point that the Head of Planning has previously given committee the steer that one solid reason is better than lots of fluffy reasons and he usually gives the committee a little bit of guidance and, in his absence, members are looking to Development Manager for an answer. David Rowen responded that it is what are the issues that are concerning members and what do members want to put into the reason for refusal, he concurs with the advice given by the Head of Planning that one sound reason for refusal beats 3 or 4 spurious ones, but it is not for him to advise the committee that it should only be refused on one ground if there are a couple of issues which are vexing the committee.

·       Councillor Marks expressed the view that the committee should go with one solid reason. Councillor Benney disagreed and suggested that it should be two, loss of agricultural land and change to the environment and street scene but asked for the Legal Officer’s advice. The Legal Officer responded that if this goes to appeal the second reason about the street scene is fairly weak and the strongest argument is the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, which clearly can be evidenced and cannot be argued with, except for the point that it can be reverted back to agricultural use.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to LP12, new development will be supported where it contributes to the sustainability of that settlement and does not harm the wide open countryside, which, in her view, this proposal does harm the open countryside.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Mrs French and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation.

Members do not support officer’s recommendation of grant of planning permission as they feel the proposal would result in the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, which is very much needed in the area.