Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for proposed change of use of land from agriculture to a use for the walking, day care and training of dogs. (retrospective application) (description amended 27/01/2021). 

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Specialist Development Management – Majors Officer, Kelly Jethwa.  The Committee noted that the site is located within a wider setting of agricultural land.  The application sought retrospective permission for the use of the site for dog walking, other routes and dog training.  The site would be formed of two pens with a dividing fence.  Vehicular access was gained via Ripley Lane.  The business involved the collection and drop-off of dogs who were brought to the land for walking and training.  There was no onsite accommodation for the dogs who were then returned home afterwards.  Paragraph 150 of the NPPF allowed for this change of use of land in the Green Belt.  The test was whether or not there would be a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.  In terms of operational development, this was minimal with the fencing and parking spaces that would otherwise be permitted development.  The site would be used more intensively than the surrounding fields and its previous use but was not uncommon in the countryside with livery stables for example.  The activity was considered suitable by planning officers for the size of the site and would preserve the openness of the Green Belt.  The applicant had also provided an updated plan which showed that the storage container currently onsite would be removed. County Highways had also asked for parking spaces to be provided which had now been incorporated.  The details of the proposed visibility splays would be conditioned and the number of trips generated by the site was found not to have an adverse impact upon the road network by the County Highway Authority.

 

The closest residential property to the site was located some 285 metres away and therefore given this significant distance and adjoining fields harm to residential amenities was considered limited.  Conditions had however been recommended in regard to hours of use and a noise management plan.  The site was screened along its boundaries and given the level of use, planning officers did not consider the site activities would harm the character of the area or landscape setting. 

 

The Chairman permitted the Ward Councillor Catherine Young to speak for three minutes. 

 

The Committee noted concerns raised that the proposal did represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  It failed to meet the requirements of the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan WH3 design management in rural areas.  Dog walking, day care and training were not listed as acceptable development in the Green Belt.  No very special circumstances had been submitted by the applicant to justify the land being used in this way.  The intensification of use on the open rural fields would clearly restrict the openness of the Green Belt and cause significant harm.  Storage containers and dog related equipment was already located onsite.  Non-native laurel had also been planted around the field with screening erected and hardcore dumped.  The development proposal should preserve the open field and woodland character which it was currently destroying.  The views to the north made a significant contribution to the areas character which this development cut through.  The operating hours proposed was seven days a week 8am – 7pm which was considered excessive.  When the site would be operating at maximum capacity it could result in a total of 264 dogs and 22 vehicles per day which was also considered to be unacceptable.  The level of noise generated by the dogs would also be excessive. The Committee noted additional concerns raised that the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan Dark Skies policy would also be breached.  

 

The Interim Head of Place, Dan Ledger confirmed that the Committee needed to consider whether the by virtue of the proposed development the openness of the Green Belt was preserved or not. 

 

The Committee considered the application and wondered how the sound of dogs barking could be effectively managed via a noise reduction plan as recommended by Environmental Health.  Concerns were noted about the effect upon native habitats and species such as deer.  Despite County Highway Authority considering that the application was acceptable in terms of number of vehicle movements the Committee noted that it would nevertheless have a detrimental effect upon air quality.  Dog walking would also require some form of lighting particularly in the latter hours of operation.  Planning officer confirmed that no lighting had been proposed as part of the application, however a condition could be applied stating that no external lighting was permitted if the Committee was minded to. 

 

The Committee remained concerned regarding the proposal, even if the containers were removed, the openness of the Green Belt would be affected by the site usage particularly the large vans which in the middle of the field were very visible.  Occasional agricultural machinery was very different from having vehicles parked on this piece of land seven days a week.  In addition, the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan cited this area as being in Character Area 6 which related to an area typified by open fields and woodlands.  This would no longer represent an open field given it would have two vehicles parked on it at any one time as well as the impact upon the surrounding views.  The Committee also could not see how a noise reduction plan would regulate dogs barking and how such repetitive noise would be highly damaging to the neighbouring residents at Hambledon Cottage and surrounding area.  The Committee also noted that the area was described in the Local Plan as having significant views over the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The fences erected and equipment onsite for the dogs harmed the character and openness of the Green Belt.

 

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was lost.

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	David Bilbe		X
2	Bob McShee		X
3	Jon Askew			X
4	Fiona White	X
5	Chris Blow		X
6	Deborah Seabrook		X
7	Pauline Searle		X
8	Marsha Moseley	X
9	Colin Cross		X
10	Maddy Redpath		X
11	Angela Goodwin		X
12	Nigel Manning	X
13	Liz Hogger		X
14	Ramsey Nagaty		X
15	Angela Gunning		X
	TOTALS	3	11	1

 

 

 

A subsequent motion was moved and seconded to refuse the application which was carried.

 

RECORDED VOTE LIST
	COUNCILLOR	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN
1	Chris Blow	X
2	Ramsey Nagaty	X
3	Liz Hogger	X
4	Colin Cross	X
5	Jon Askew			X
6	Pauline Searle	X
7	Bob McShee	X
8	David Bilbe	X
9	Deborah Seabrook	X
10	Nigel Manning		X
11	Angela Gunning	X
12	Maddy Redpath	X
13	Angela Goodwin	X
14	Marsha Moseley		X
15	Fiona White			X
	TOTALS	11	2	2

 

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to the application, the Committee

 

RESOLVED to refuse application 20/P/01359 for the following reasons:

 

1. The development represents a material change of use of land and would, by

virtue of the increase in vehicular trips and associated parking of vehicles on the

land compared to the previous use of the land, fail to preserve the openness of

the Green Belt. It therefore fails to comply with the provisions of paragraph

150(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 and represents

inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There are no very special

circumstances which outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason

of its inappropriateness. The proposal is therefore contrary to para. 150(e) of the

NPPF 2021 and policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites

2019.

 

2. The change of use, by virtue of the fencing creating subdivisions of the field and

the associated parking of vehicles (both of which are necessitated by the use of

the land) fails to preserve the essential open field character of the site which is

located in ‘Character Area 6 – Long Reach – West Side’ identified in the West

Horsley Neighbourhood Plan, this would harm the identified characteristics of the

locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy D1(4) of the Guildford

Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2019, policy WH3(i) of the West Horsley

Neighbourhood Plan 2016 – 2033 and the NPPF.

 

 

3. The change of use, introduces an inherently noisy activity resulting including

barking dogs and vehicle movements at an intensity that has a harmful impact on

the amenities of Hambledown Cottage and other residential properties to the

south and east of the site. The Council does not consider that adequate controls

can be applied to limit the effect of the noise through the use of planning

conditions. This would be contrary to policy G1(3) of the Guildford Borough Local

Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007) and the NPPF 2021.

 

Informatives:

1. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and

Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach to

development proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive

manner by:

 

??Offering a pre application advice service

??Where pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has been

followed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising during

the course of the application

??Where possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issues

identified at an early stage in the application process

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessary

negotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significant changes

to an application is required.

 

In this case, pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission and minor

alterations were required to overcome concerns, these were sought and the

applicant agreed to the changes, however, the Council ultimately considered the

development to be unacceptable.

 

2. This decision relates expressly to drawing P50 Rev C and additional information

received on 22 December 2020.