Agenda item

Change of use to a dog exercise park to include the formation of car parking areas, fencing and storage container.

Councillor Hobbs-Chell entered the meeting at 10:16.

 

The Development Management Team Leader presented the application for the change of use of land to a dog exercise park and the formation of car parking areas, along with the fencing and the placement of a storage container. The application history was outlined, noting that the original decision, that had granted permission under delegated powers had been quashed.

 

The site location within Cole Hill was shown on a map, along with a proposal plan identifying the main and additional entrances to the two separate dog parks, both outlined on the plan. It was explained that both parts of the park would be available for hire during daylight hours, with no lighting proposed on site. Photographs of the storage container were shown, which would be used for storing land maintenance equipment. The park areas were confirmed as approximately 0.7 hectares and 1.5 hectares. It was noted that customers would be required to sign up to terms and conditions when booking and CCTV would be installed on site to ensure that users of the park complied with the rules.

 

The use of the park was considered to have limited visual impact from the highway. Photographs of the access and both dog parks, including their boundaries with the public right of way, were presented. The context of the location was discussed. Concerns had been raised that it was too far from the urban area, but officers considered the proposal to represent rural land diversification. The Highways had team confirmed they were satisfied with the visibility splays and the road accessing the site already served dwellings, public land and two public houses, with some wide sections allowing passing. Drivers were expected to drive with reasonable consideration and the dog park would operate on a pre-booking basis, meaning vehicle movements would be controlled.

 

The impact on heritage assets was considered, noting that the boundary extended around listed buildings. It was noted that the highway was in regular use and additional cars generated by the proposal were not expected to change the character of the road. The development would not result in any significant changed experience of the heritage assets. The ecological impacts of the proposal were outlined and it was explained that there had been concerns raised by third parties about impacts on protected species. However, no evidence had been identified that showed that protected species were using the site and the Council’s Natural Environment team were satisfied that more than 10% biodiversity net gain could be achieved and that protected species would not be harmed.

 

The impact on neighbouring amenity was addressed, with noise identified as a significant concern of objectors. A noise impact assessment had been submitted in support of the application, which considered the impact of six dogs and six people in park 1 closest to the neighbouring properties. Officers considered that the impact on residential properties would be limited and that baseline noise levels were not unusual given the proximity to the highway and a flight path. Site management was expected to be taken seriously by the applicant and officers considered it reasonable that users comply with the rules, supported by CCTV for enforcement.

 

Neighbouring land use included sheep and goats adjacent to the site and users would be warned to avoid hiring dog park 2 if their dogs were sensitive to animals. Double gates would provide an airlock system and dogs would be supervised at all times. Fencing was in place and would be monitored to ensure it was maintained, as required by condition 4.

 

The application was considered acceptable and recommended for approval. A third-party concern was addressed about land ownership certificates not being properly completed. The applicant had served notice to the previous owner, so the recommendation was to delegate authority to grant permission after the 21-day notice period had passed. An amended version of condition 5  was presented to members which would require the Council to be notified any complaints and where judged necessary, the Local Authority could request information on steps taken to resolve complaints.

 

James Blake, Neil Taylor, William Shakespeare and Geoff Chopping spoke in objection to the application. They raised concerns including the proximity to residential dwellings and livestock and amenity impact the proposal would have in terms of noise from dogs barking and increased vehicle movements. Concern was also raised about the applicants operations plan, which they noted did not adequately address how noise nuisance would be prevented and was reliant on users of the parks complying with the terms of service. In addition it was claimed that landscaping works had been carried out prior to an ecological assessment.

 

Samantha Taylor and the agent for the application, Emily Jeffries, spoke in support of the application. They stated that there was a clear need for dog parks in the area to allow people to safely exercise their dogs. It was explained that the applicant had worked with officers to provide a revised operations plan and that CCTV would be used to enforce this. In addition any impact on nearby livestock would be limited, due to hedging and fencing separating the two fields.

 

The local Ward Member, Cllr Chakawhata submitted a written statement that was read out by the Vice-chair. He stated that he didn’t believe that highways concerns had been addressed sufficiently, as Long Lane was a rural, narrow road, with few passing places and the proposal would generate increased vehicle movements. In addition, he stated that the CCTV was not an adequate measure as it would only allow intervention after complaints had been made, rather than preventing harm before it occurs. He also stated that it represented intensification of development within the green belt.

 

Officers provided the following responses to members questions and comments:

·       The two dog parks would operate as two separate private areas for hire, so there would not be multiple unacquainted customers using the same park at once.

·       Banned breeds were required to have 1:1 ratio with a handler.

·       The applicant intended to check the entrance of every new customer on site using the CCTV.

·       The CCTV would have solar and battery power and would also provide an audio feed.

·       There would be no on-site management presence during operating hours and this was consistent with the operation of other dog parks.

·       A condition would require maintenance of the fencing alongside the right of way prior to use.

·       The proposed operation hours of the park would be from 07:00 to 20:00 or between daylight hours in winter. Members could constrain the timings further if judged necessary.

·       There would be a maximum of 3 vehicles allowed per booking and CCTV would be used to monitor customers arriving.

·       A maximum of 6 dogs would be allowed in the southern park and 10 in the northern park at one time.

·       Harm from noise couldn’t be entirely ruled out, however officers considered that the CCTV would allow for the parks to be monitored and action could be taken in response to noise complaints by the operator.

·       Comparison with dog park at Three Legged Cross was not appropriate as that park was not authorised (planning application under consideration).

·       Officers understand that there were protected species within the vicinity of the application site, however there was no evidence to suggest that they were using the site and the Natural Environment team were satisfied with the proposal.

·       The business would have a website with a feedback form to allow complaints to be submitted.

·       The application had come to the committee for determination as it met the criteria of being a major application.

·       Long Lane had a speed limit of 60mph, however Highways officers considered that users of the road were unlikely to reach the top limit and the nature of the road encouraged maximum speeds of 30-40mph at its widest points.

·       The noise assessment was taken from the nearest receptor, which was the closest residential property, as it was standard practice.

·       There was one incident of the Council’s Environmental Protection team following up on a complaint about another dog park in Dorset, however they did not find evidence of unacceptable noise levels.

·       Regular checks of the fences would be carried out to ensure they were in good condition.

·       There was a line of site between the dog park and the neighbouring field containing livestock, however officers considered that the boundary was sufficiently screened to mitigate adverse impacts.

·       Work had commenced on site before the original decision was quashed.

·       It was not known where the operator would be located, however they would be available to contact if there were any complaints.

·       The site was understood to benefit from phone network coverage

·       There was no proposed water or toilet facilities on the site.

·       Officers did not consider it reasonable to condition on-site management, as it would require further development of the site in providing more facilities for an employee.

·       The operations plan identified that the CCTV would be reviewed in real time when new customers were accessing the site and periodically when existing customers were using the park.

·       Members could condition that signage with the operators contact information be installed within the site.

 

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members expressed that they felt that the conditions in place were sufficient to mitigate against any harms and that the proposal was appropriate for the rural location of the site. It was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Brenton to grant the application with an added condition, requiring signage be installed on site featuring a manned telephone number.

 

Upon being put to the vote the motion fell.

 

The meeting adjourned 12:13 – 12:29.

 

Several members expressed concerns that due to the intensification of visitors without any onsite management presence, issues of noise disturbance or failure to meet the site rules could not be effectively managed so the proposal would be likely to result in harm.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Skeats and seconded by Cllr Ezzard, that the application be refused as the proposed use as a dog park would cause additional noise and disturbance which the Operations plan, due to the unsupervised nature of the park, could not reasonably be relied upon to effectively mitigate and manage. The resulting harm from the use of the site and additional traffic movements on neighbouring amenity, the character of the rural area and surrounding livestock arising from noise and disturbance, would be contrary to policies HE2 of the Christchurch Local and East Dorset Local Plan, saved policy DES2 of the East Dorset Local Plan and NPPF paragraphs 135 and 187.

 

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.