Agenda item

Change of use from Agriculture to Dog Exercise Training Facility at land to the south of Little Chatsworth Cottages, Millthorpe Lane, Holmesfield

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for the change of use from Agriculture to a Dog Exercise and Training facility at land to the south of Little Chatsworth Cottages, Millthorpe Lane, Holmesfield. The Application had been referred to Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor B Strafford-Stephenson, who had raised concerns about it.

Planning Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Officers contended that the change of use would be in line National and Local Planning Policies. Allowing dog training in the field would not cause any unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. But to make sure of this, and in response to the concerns which had been raised locally, they recommended that only temporary permission for the development be granted. This would allow the impact of the change of use to be monitored over the two year period covered by the temporary permission. If full permission for the development was subsequently granted then any identified problems could be rectified.

Before the Committee considered the Application, it heard from Local Ward Member B Strafford-Stephenson, C Brooks, R Barnes, K Botros, H Stuart-Bamford, A Turner, N Todd, H Geary, M Greenland and S Nash, who spoke against the Application. The Applicant, H Wordsworth, and the Agent for the Application, M Seddon, spoke in support of it.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development and the site’s location outside of the defined Settlement Limits for Holmesfield, but within the countryside and the Green Belt. It considered the relevant Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS9, on acceptable development in the Countryside and in particular, category 1(d) of the Policy, on small scale use related to recreation. It took into account Local Plan Policy SD3, requiring new developments to not significantly harm the character, quality distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape. It also took into account Local Plan Policy SS10, proscribing inappropriate development in the Green Belt, except in very special circumstances and Local Plan Policy SDC12, requiring that all new developments protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Members discussed the Application. They heard about how the Dog Training Facility would operate, the Parking and Access arrangements for those visiting it and how boundary fencing would be used to help prevent dogs from escaping into the neighbouring fields and properties. They discussed the noise and other impacts which the Development might have on the surrounding area.  In this context, Members discussed the concerns raised that those travelling to use the Facility might generate additional traffic in the local area, and also that it was not required and so unlikely to be widely used.

Some Members felt that that the Application would be contrary to Local and National Planning Policies. They expressed concern that the proposed fencing to enclose the Field, the creation of hard surfacing for parked cars and the new access to the site would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. They also queried what impact the change of use might have on possible future developments if it became classed as a Brownfield Site. Officers explained how the planning system could be used to prevent inappropriate development in such circumstances.

Some Members felt that the Development would be acceptable, with the imposition of appropriate conditions and if outstanding questions were clarified. They noted the conclusion of officers that the general principle of the proposed use and associated development would not be inappropriate, subject to it preserving openness and not conflicting with Green Belt uses.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor A Cooper and K Rouse moved and seconded a Motion to approve Application, in accordance with officer recommendations.  The Motion was put the vote and was defeated.

Councillor D Ruff and H Liggett then moved and seconded a Motion to refuse the Application, contrary to officer recommendations. The Motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

RESOLVED -

That the Application be refused, contrary to officer recommendations.

Reasons

1.            The application is considered unacceptable as by reason of the erection of the fencing to enclose the field, the creation of hard surfacing and a new access and the comings and goings associated with the proposed use it would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The development would, therefore, constitute inappropriate development and there are no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm caused.

As such, the application is contrary to policy SS10 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.        The application is considered unacceptable as by reason of the comings and goings of customers and their dogs when arriving at and leaving the site and the noise created whilst attending and using the facility there would be an unacceptable impact caused to the amenity and welfare of nearby residents and the local area.

This would be contrary to policies SDC3 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.        The application is considered to be unacceptable as by reason of the erection of fencing, the formation of a new access and car parking area and the impact of the new use there would be an unacceptable impact on the character, quality, distinctiveness, sensitivity and tranquillity of the area, one identified as a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity.

As such, the development would be contrary to policies SS1, SDC3 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.