Agenda item

Proposal Description: Item 8: Change of use to agricultural land to a sui generis use for secure dog walking, together with the instalment of stock fencing to secure the area.

The application was introduced. Members were referred to the Update Sheet which set out in full an update to the supporting representation section of the report.

During public participation, Tim Blockley and Orlando Rooker-Roberts spoke in objection to the application and Ed Daniel spoke in spoke in support of the application and answered Members’ questions thereon.

Councillor Gordon-Smith spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Gordon-Smith raised the following points:

·       As a long-term resident, Councillor Gordon-Smith emphasised the importance of open countryside access for dog walking and health.

·       He raised concerns about potential noise from dog barking, citing the council Animal Welfare Officer's statement about the large potential for noise nuisance, especially from lively, undertrained dogs. A personal experience of hearing distressed dogs barking outside a shop, even through double-glazed windows, was shared to illustrate the disruptive impact.

·       Objections were raised regarding a potential increase in traffic on the private road. Councillor Gordon-Smith suggested that Hampshire Highways might not fully appreciate the concerns of everyday drivers.

·       The argument that dog paddocks reduce noise nuisance, such as sheep worrying, was deemed unconvincing. He argued that people with badly behaved dogs were unlikely to use dog paddocks.

·       In conclusion, Councillor Gordon-Smith cautioned that dog walking paddocks might lead to further developments and retrospective planning applications, potentially creating problems.

Councillor Power spoke as Ward Member in objection to the application. In summary, Councillor Power raised the following points:

·       Expressed concern about the impact on residential amenity due to the development.

·       Described the location as one of the few places where the Milky Way was visible due to the lack of ambient light levels.

·       Stated there would be nuisance on three subjects: noise, the conditions allow for lighting when there should be no lighting in rural areas, and access via a single-track road with no pavements or passing places.

·       Anticipates another 40 traffic movements a day on the single-track road, which was the only access for both pedestrians and residents in cars.

·       Noted that two properties adjoining the site currently have a beautiful view over the valley, which would be obstructed by a 1.8 metre stock fence, forcing residents to choose between privacy and their view.

·       Referenced the Animal Welfare Officer's concerns about the revised management plan, stating that it does not reassure them that the owners of the site have the expertise to manage it.

·       Cited the Historic Environment Officer's reference to unspoiled views to the west and north across the valley and to the trees on the skyline beyond.

·       Requested further limits on the opening hours and that no lighting be installed, if the committee were minded to approve the application.

During discussion, the committee considered that, should they be minded to approve the proposal or it be heard at appeal, any lighting condition would need to be significantly strengthened to include a caveat stating that no lighting of any type should be installed.

The Committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the application.

          RESOLVED:

                     The committee agreed to refuse permission for the following                      reasons:

(i)             Tranquillity, Noise and Neighbour Impact. Contrary to policies: DM13, DM17 and DM23 of Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) and MTRA4. The proposal provided insufficient information justification to show that noise proposals would not have a significant or detrimental impact on neighbouring amenities.   The precise wording to be delegated to the Chair of Planning Committee, in consultation with the Service Lead: Built Environment.