Agenda item

Change of use of land and buildings to an animal rescue centre with ancillary offices and storage; the demolition of a hay store and silage clamp; the provision of 2 no. single storey extensions to existing buildings; retention of a mobile home for animal welfare; parking; and associated works.

The Case Officer informed members that a petition had been received in support of the application with 2,500 signatures and an additional letter in support from Wildlife Rescues.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site, explaining that it lies in statutory Green Belt and is adjacent to protected Dorset Heathlands. The Case officer described the proposal, constraints and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the site and proposed floor plans and elevations were shown. The Case Officer informed members that in terms of the NPPF, the proposed extensions to the barn including  the attached external pens represented disproportionate additions to the barn so was not appropriate development in the Green Belt. The site is in close proximity to protected heathland and Natural England had been consulted. Natural England has raised objection due to heathland proximity and the risk of harm from dogs being walked on the heathland. A management plan had been submitted as part of the application identifying use of the site and the Castleman trailway for dog exercising and no walking of dogs on the heath. Members were advised that an Appropriate Assessment had identified the potential for likely significant impacts from the proposal on protected heathland and that these could not adequately be mitigated by the management plan due to difficulties on enforcement so the proposal was contrary to policy and could not be approved.

The Case Officer also identified the impacts on neighbouring amenity specifically impacts on the amenity of occupants of nearby dwellings from noise. A management plan had been submitted to address noise concerns for the nearest dwellings and it was judged that this would be appropriate and could be secured by condition. Traffic movements, flood risk and drainage assessments were also highlighted.

To conclude, the Case Officer recognised the benefits of the proposal but noted that the development represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt which was required to be given great weight in the planning balance. Although the benefits of additional outdoor space for the charity compared to its existing premises were recognised, these were not judged so special as to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other arising harm. There were no imperative reasons of overriding public interest that would justify approval of the scheme which was likely to result in harm to the integrity of protected Dorset Heathland. Therefore, the officer recommendation was to refuse.

Public Participation

Mr Hicks was a neighbour to the site and spoke in objection to the proposal. He highlighted the impacts including pollution of the Moors River System which would arise if members were minded to approve. He was concerned that there would be an increase in noise and traffic movements on the heathland as well as highlighting the flood risk and need for site access on neighbouring land in times of flooding. Mr Hicks highlighted a previous advertisement by the charity which promoted the use of outside enclosures for dog training and exercise which contributed to his concerns regarding additional noise pollution. The public objector noted that the site was adjacent to the Dorset Heathlands and only 200 metres from the Moors River which was another site of special scientific interest in close proximity. He felt this should have also been another consideration and members should be minded to support the officer recommendation to refuse.

Mr Chapman spoke in support of the proposal. He provided members with some background regarding the history of the charity and the need for it. Without the charity, it would have resulted in the in pounding of dogs. The charity also provided services to the community such as food and veterinary support to those struggling. By allowing the application, it would mean that the charity would be able to gain more land which would provide greater space to help the socialisation of dogs and better training to help rehoming. Mr Chapman also highlighted that risk management assessments had been carried out as well as health and safety checks. It was a well-managed charity, and he hoped members would overturn the officer recommendation and support a much-needed charity which provided a safe environment for dogs in need.

The agent spoke on behalf of the applicant who was seeking to create a larger base for the charity. He highlighted the need for services rehoming dogs as there was a strong need. Mr Osborn spoke about the collaboration between the planning department and the applicant, who provided additional information where requested. He strongly disagreed with the reasons for refusal and was disappointed that there was no definition of what was considered to be disproportionate. If approved, the proposal would result in a net reduction [EA1] and would not cause harm to the Green Belt. There would not be an impact on the heathland as dogs would not be walked there. It was a required site providing extensive land and a management plan would require dogs to be walked on leads at all times. Mr Osborn felt that the applicant had done everything correctly and had listened to the concerns, however, was pleased to note that there was a lot of support which was shown in the petition. The agent hoped members would overturn the officer recommendation and support the proposal.

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding the scale of the proposal as well as the number of neighbouring properties.
• Figures of the existing footfall on the Special Scientific Interest site.
• Confirmation regarding public rights of way on the SSSI.
• Questions whether a planning condition could enforce dog proof fencing around the site.
• Cllr Trite felt that there was a serious need for the proposal and strongly approved of the use. However, he noted that members should always be protective of the countryside and the Green Belt and although it was a necessary use, it was unfortunately in the wrong place.
• Members referred to the officer report and noted the comments in objection received from Natural England.
• Cllr Sowry-House recognised the work of the charity and supported their work. However, he noted that there were only 14 areas of Green Belt, with only one of those on the south coast, therefore, it was imperative to protect it.
• Members praised the work of the charity and felt that the work that they were doing was commendable, however, the location was wrong and hoped they would continue to look at expanding their charity.
• Questions regarding whether the petition impacted any of the report detail.
• Query regarding the impacts on the Moors River.
• Comments made regarding potential for external users coming to use the site for agility and sought clarification on the impact of this on the area and Green Belt.
• The key element was the impact on heathland.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to REFUSE planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Spencer Flower, and seconded by Cllr Duncan Sowry-House.

Decision: To refuse in line with the officer’s recommendation.