Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report of the Chief Planning Officer regarding an application for the change of use of land (Paddock and Woodland) to outdoor pet recreation and exercise facility and erection of fencing

 

The report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change ofThe report of the Chief Planning Officer presented an application for the change of use of land (paddock and woodland) to an outdoor pet recreation and exercise facility and erection of fencing.

 

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

 

·  The application had been referred to Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor.

·  There was a linear access point to the site from Carr Road.

·  To site was formerly used as a paddock area.

·  There was a private drive to the rear of the site that provided access to residential properties.

·  The change of use was to provide an exercise area for pets.

·  The site fell within the Calverley Conservation Area.

·  The site would be made available via a booking service.

·  There would only be minimal physical alterations.

·  There would be car parking for up to three vehicles.

·  There would be post and rail fencing to enclose the paddock area and fencing towards the woodland area.

·  The fencing would be set in from the nearest residential properties by two metres with additional planting in place.  The distance would be 5 metres from Clara Drive.

·  The site was within the greenbelt.

·  There would be no access from Clara Drive.

·  The walls at the access to the site would need to be lowered to improve visibility.

·  There were woodland areas to the rear of the site. that were popular with dog walkers.

·  Main issues to consider included the following:

o  Use of land within the greenbelt,

o  Highway safety.

o  Intensity of use – there would be limited numbers using the site at any one time.

o  Impact on heritage assets within the conservation area

o  Impact on living conditions of local residents particular those in close proximity to the site.

·  There had been additional representations from residents of Clara Drive which had included queries regarding the supervision of the site, staff training, concern regarding dangerous dogs and hours of operation.

·  Further objections had focussed on the impact on access, not suitable use of the land, impact on biodiversity and noise from barking dogs.

·  An objector to the application had engaged a noise consultant and had provided a report.  It was felt that only limited weight could be afforded to this.

·  The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

Objectors to the application addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

 

·  The development was not essential as per saved policy N33 of the UDPand the proposals did not demonstrate the very special circumstances for development within the greenbelt.

·  The report failed to deal with noise nuisance.  The facility would be in a place with low ambient noise.  The noise of four dogs barking would impact on the quality of life for local residents.

·  The proposed hours of operation were very long.  From 8.00 a.m. there would be an irreversible loss of amenity due to barking dogs.  There was no proposed noise management plan.

·  There could be disturbance from people using torches and other lighting.

·  The purpose of the application is to run a business which was not appropriate to the greenbelt or conservation area.

·  The character of the area was of regional and historical significance and had been virtually unaltered since 1755.  This application was likely to change the character of the area.

·  Disturbance for people who worked from home, worked shifts and wanted to enjoy the amenity of their garden spaces.

·  There would be disturbance seven days a week.

·  Only three of the people supporting the application lived in Calverley.

·  There could be up to 96 dogs a day causing a disturbance with 8 dogs an hour.

·  The application was not appropriate next to a residential area.

·  In response to questions from he Panel, the following was discussed:

o  If the owner of the site had their own dogs there wouldn’t be the disturbance of up to 30 people a day.  They wouldn’t be outside all day.

o  The fundamental objection was that the application was not for essential development.  This did not detract from the issue of noise and other issues.

o  Residential dog ownership is a different proposition to the possibility of having a turnover of 8 different dogs every hour.  These could be dogs that need training and have behaviour issues.

o  Residents felt that noise was the primary consideration.

o  The location was currently quiet.  There would be no other competing noise with dogs barking.  These were likely to be dogs with behavioural problems.  The average dog bark is between 8-80 and 90 decibels.

o  There were different places to take dogs and there was no requirement for such a facility in this area.

o  There were already facilities for dog training in Calverley and Calverley Woods was well used for dog walking.

o  This was a facility in a  greenbelt area that was not essential.

o  If the number of dogs was restricted the application would be more favourable as it was very different to having eight dogs on site.

o  Disturbance from the site would be continuous.  Noise levels in neighbouring properties would be breached.

 

The applicant addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

 

·  The applicant runs a dog walking and pet care business and has operated in the area for a number of years.

·  Calverley Woods was an area that the applicant worked in and they had become involved in the community getting involved in events such as litter picks.

·  The proposals would provide a fully enclosed secure and safe place with no fear of dogs escaping.  It would be possible to drive into the enclosure so dogs could not escape before entering.

·  The facility could be used for a variety of reasons including for those who aren’t comfortable having their dogs near other dogs or traffic and for training.  This kind of facility was more and more becoming an essential resource.

·  There would be robust and suitable fencing and would be continually checked to ensure there were no weaknesses or escape points.  There were already a number of mature trees on the boundary and there could be additional planting.

·  Potential disturbance – dogs that bark incessantly would not be allowed to use the site.  It was anticipated that the majority of bookings would be from sole dog owners with one or two dogs.  Other bookings may involve one to one training sessions.  There may be bookings with professional dog walkers and these could be the bookings that raised the concerns by residents.  This kind of booking was  only likely to take place between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on weekdays and it was highly unlikely that there would be eight dogs at any one time.

·  Activity at the site would be carefully monitored.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  A limit of eight dogs had been agreed with planning.  A professional dog walker was permitted to take six dogs in a public place in Leeds and any individual could walk up to four.  There was no limit on private land.

o  The woodland space within the site was required as it provided more space and features to keep dogs occupied.  The paddock area was too small on its own and would have limitations.

o  The exercise area would be 5 metres further back from the road rather than the 2 metres initially proposed.

o  The facility would not be open after 3.00 p.m. in the winter during limited daylight.  The paddock did get very wet and it would be likely that the facility would be closed for a period.

o  It was not proposed for the facility to be open on a Sunday afternoon.

o  Fencing would be regularly checked and there would also be CCTV for additional security.

o  The applicant was willing to put in additional hedging between the site and 28 Clara Drive.

o  There was no intention of providing any lighting on the site.

In response to questions and comments, the following was discussed:

 

·  Policy N33 gave a list of types of development that could be approved in the Green Belt (without having to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances). The application was for a change of use of land and there was some alteration with the proposed fencing.  It was not felt that the application would compromise greenbelt objectives. Applying the ”essential” test was therefore incorrect;

·  The noise monitoring report had only been received recently and there had not been an opportunity to consult Environmental Health.

·  Car parking would be permitted under policy as it did not impact on the openness of the greenbelt.  There was already a hard standing area that would be used for parking. 

·  There would be one parking space within the paddock area and it was unknown if this would need some kind of surface treatment.  It was reported that this would not impact on the openness of the greenbelt and could be covered by an additional condition to the application.

·  There was no requirement to demonstrate the need for the application.

·  The applicant could erect fencing under permitted development rights.

·  Comments from Environmental Health on the potential for noise disturbance would be welcome before making a decision.

·  The possibility of restricting the number of dogs that could be on site at different times of the day.

·  Could there be conditions for no lighting; to have additional hedging or acoustic fencing and that the car parking within the paddock should not be hard standing.

·  There was not any fundamental disagreement from Members with the change of use of the site.

·  A more detailed analysis of the noise report provided by the objectors was requested.

·  The principle of the change of use of the site was acceptable.

 

RESOLVED – That the item be deferred to give consideration to the following:

 

·  Use of a potentially smaller area within the site.

·  Reduced or staggered hours of use.

·  Reduction in the number of dogs at any one time.

·  The provision of acoustic fencing.

·  Surfacing of the parking space within the paddock area.

·  Comment from Environmental Health on the noise report.

 use of land (paddock and woodland) to an outdoor pet recreation and exercise facility and erection of fencing.

 

Members visited the site prior to the meeting and site plans and photographs were displayed and referred to throughout the discussion of the application.

 

The following was highlighted in relation to the application:

 

·  The application had been referred to Panel at the request of a local Ward Councillor.

·  There was a linear access point to the site from Carr Road.

·  To site was formerly used as a paddock area.

·  There was a private drive to the rear of the site that provided access to residential properties.

·  The change of use was to provide an exercise area for pets.

·  The site fell within the Calverley Conservation Area.

·  The site would be made available via a booking service.

·  There would only be minimal physical alterations.

·  There would be car parking for up to three vehicles.

·  There would be post and rail fencing to enclose the paddock area and fencing towards the woodland area.

·  The fencing would be set in from the nearest residential properties by two metres with additional planting in place.  The distance would be 5 metres from Clara Drive.

·  The site was within the greenbelt.

·  There would be no access from Clara Drive.

·  The walls at the access to the site would need to be lowered to improve visibility.

·  There were woodland areas to the rear of the site. that were popular with dog walkers.

·  Main issues to consider included the following:

o  Use of land within the greenbelt,

o  Highway safety.

o  Intensity of use – there would be limited numbers using the site at any one time.

o  Impact on heritage assets within the conservation area

o  Impact on living conditions of local residents particular those in close proximity to the site.

·  There had been additional representations from residents of Clara Drive which had included queries regarding the supervision of the site, staff training, concern regarding dangerous dogs and hours of operation.

·  Further objections had focussed on the impact on access, not suitable use of the land, impact on biodiversity and noise from barking dogs.

·  An objector to the application had engaged a noise consultant and had provided a report.  It was felt that only limited weight could be afforded to this.

·  The application was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

Objectors to the application addressed the Panel.  Issues highlighted included the following:

 

·  The application was not essential ant the proposals did not demonstrate the very special circumstances for development within the greenbelt.

·  The report failed to deal with noise nuisance.  The facility would be in a place with low ambient noise.  The noise of four dogs barking would impact on the quality of life for local residents.

·  The proposed hours of operation were very long.  From 8.00 a.m. there would be an irreversible loss of amenity due to barking dogs.  There was no proposed noise management plan.

·  There could be disturbance from people using torches and other lighting.

·  The purpose of the application is to run a business which was not appropriate to the greenbelt or conservation area.

·  The character of the area was of regional and historical significance and had been virtually unaltered since 1755.  This application was likely to change the character of the area.

·  Disturbance for people who worked from home, worked shifts and wanted to enjoy the amenity of their garden spaces.

·  There would be disturbance seven days a week.

·  Only three of the people supporting the application lived in Calverley.

·  There could be up to 96 dogs a day causing a disturbance with 8 dogs an hour.

·  The application was not appropriate next to a residential area.

·  In response to questions from he Panel, the following was discussed:

o  If the owner of the site had their own dogs there wouldn’t be the disturbance of up to 30 people a day.  They wouldn’t be outside all day.

o  The fundamental objection was that the application was not essential.  This did not detract from the issue of noise and other issues.

o  Residential dog ownership is a different proposition to the possibility of having a turnover of 8 different dogs every hour.  These could be dogs that need training and have behaviour issues.

o  Residents felt that noise was the primary consideration.

o  The location was currently quiet.  There would be no other competing noise with dogs barking.  These were likely to be dogs with behavioural problems.  The average dog bark is between 8-80 and 90 decibels.

o  There were different places to take dogs and there was no requirement for such a facility in this area.

o  There were already facilities for dog training in Calverley and Calverley Woods was well used for dog walking.

o  This was a facility in a  greenbelt area that was not essential.

o  If the number of dogs was restricted the application would be more favourable as it was very different to having eight dogs on site.

o  Disturbance from the site would be continuous.  Noise levels in neighbouring properties would be breached.

 

The applicant addressed the Panel.  The following was highlighted:

 

·  The applicant runs a dog walking and pet care business and has operated in the area for a number of years.

·  Calverley Woods was an area that the applicant worked in and they had become involved in the community getting involved in events such as litter picks.

·  The proposals would provide a fully enclosed secure and safe place with no fear of dogs escaping.  It would be possible to drive into the enclosure so dogs could not escape before entering.

·  The facility could be used for a variety of reasons including for those who aren’t comfortable having their dogs near other dogs or traffic and for training.  This kind of facility was more and more becoming an essential resource.

·  There would be robust and suitable fencing and would be continually checked to ensure there were no weaknesses or escape points.  There were already a number of mature trees on the boundary and there could be additional planting.

·  Potential disturbance – dogs that bark incessantly would not be allowed to use the site.  It was anticipated that the majority of bookings would be from sole dog owners with one or two dogs.  Other bookings may involve one to one training sessions.  There may be bookings with professional dog walkers and these could be the bookings that raised the concerns by residents.  This kind of booking was  only likely to take place between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. on weekdays and it was highly unlikely that there would be eight dogs at any one time.

·  Activity at the site would be carefully monitored.

·  In response to questions from the Panel, the following was discussed:

o  A limit of eight dogs had been agreed with planning.  A professional dog walker was permitted to take six dogs in a public place in Leeds and any individual could walk up to four.  There was no limit on private land.

o  The woodland space within the site was required as it provided more space and features to keep dogs occupied.  The paddock area was too small on its own and would have limitations.

o  The exercise area would be 5 metres further back from the road rather than the 2 metres initially proposed.

o  The facility would not be open after 3.00 p.m. in the winter during limited daylight.  The paddock did get very wet and it would be likely that the facility would be closed for a period.

o  It was not proposed for the facility to be open on a Sunday afternoon.

o  Fencing would be regularly checked and there would also be CCTV for additional security.

o  The applicant was willing to put in additional hedging between the site and 28 Clara Drive.

o  There was no intention of providing any lighting on the site.

In response to questions and comments, the following was discussed:

 

·  The application was for a change of use of land and there was some alteration with the proposed fencing.  It was not felt that the application would compromise greenbelt objectives.

·  The noise monitoring report had only been received recently and there had not been an opportunity to consult Environmental Health.

·  Car parking would be permitted under policy as it did not impact on the openness of the greenbelt.  There was already a hard standing area that would be used for parking. 

·  There would be one parking space within the paddock area and it was unknown if this would need some kind of surface treatment.  It was reported that this would not impact on the openness of the greenbelt and could be covered by an additional condition to the application.

·  There was no requirement to demonstrate the need for the application.

·  The applicant could erect fencing under permitted development rights.

·  Comments from Environmental Health on the potential for noise disturbance would be welcome before making a decision.

·  The possibility of restricting the number of dogs that could be on site at different times of the day.

·  Could there be conditions for no lighting; to have additional hedging or acoustic fencing and that the car parking within the paddock should not be hard standing.

·  There was not any fundamental disagreement from Members with the change of use of the site.

·  A more detailed analysis of the noise report provided by the objectors was requested.

·  The principle of the change of use of the site was acceptable.

 

RESOLVED – That the item be deferred to give consideration to the following:

 

·  Use of a potentially smaller area within the site.

·  Reduced or staggered hours of use.

·  Reduction in the number of dogs at any one time.

·  The provision of acoustic fencing.

·  Surfacing of the parking space within the paddock area.

·  Comment from Environmental Health on the noise report.