Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/01045/FUL - Land Parcel West of 4 Parkers Lane Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire

Summary

Change of use of an agricultural grazing paddock to also be used as two secure dog walking fields at Land Parcel West of 4 Parkers Lane Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire

 

Case Officer

Sophie Browne

 

Ward Member

Councillor Daryl Corps

 

Recommendation

PERMIT

 

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the item.

 

The application was for the change of use of an agricultural grazing paddock to also be used as two secure dog walking fields at Land Parcel West of 4 Parkers Lane Moreton-In-Marsh Gloucestershire.

 

The officer recommendation was to permit.

 

The Case Officer stated (upon later clarification) that the site was within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and summarised the contents of the additional pages.

 

Mr. Matt Beresford addressed the Committee to object to the application.

 

The applicant, Ms. Christina Oughton, addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Daryl Corps addressed the Committee as the ward member. Councillor Corps stated that he had referred the application to the Committee due to the unique nature of the application and strong representation from residents both objecting and supporting the application.

 

Sites Inspection briefing

 

The Chair asked members who attended the briefing to summarise their findings.

 

Members raised the following points;

  • There were ample spaces to park a car around the site.
  • There were concerns over whether the nearby junction could be impacted.
  • The site was in close proximity to the nearby houses.

 

Member Questions

 

Members noted that there was no proposed lighting, and asked officers whether this would impact the times the fields would be in use. The Interim Development Manager stated that the intention was for the fields to be utilised only during daylight hours, and that this was reflected in the booking system. There was related discussion over the hours in the associated business plan, which extended into 8/9pm. Officers clarified that these were the operating hours of a different site which had been included in the business plan for illustrative purposes.

 

Officers also confirmed that no additional structures were to be added to the field (e.g. for dog agility training), and that the conditions reflected this.

 

Members asked about the fencing and associated landscape works. The fencing was confirmed by the Case Officer as being of an appropriate type and height to contain dogs. It would also be fully contained within the hedging, so as to not be visible from the outside.

 

Members requested detail on the impact to great crested newts, which were referenced in the Officer report. The Case Officer stated that the mention of the newts was due to the area that the site lay in, but that the Biodiversity Officer was consulted and satisfied that there was no risk to great crested newts from the proposal.

 

Members discussed the positioning of the hard standing, and whether it could be moved to reduce the noise impact on residents. The Case Officer stated that the positioning of it was to reduce the impact on the AONB and the Interim Development Manager added that the built elements should be kept as close to the site as possible.

 

The Committee asked about the disruption and noise levels. There would be staggered start times to the 50 minute slots, but there would be a maximum of four cars arriving an hour.

 

Members asked about the ‘sui generis’ use class, and what this entailed. The Interim Development Manager and Case Officer both explained that this use class essentially entailed no permitted change of use from anything other than a dog walking field without further planning permission being required. The Interim Development Manager highlighted that if the application was granted, there would be no material change to the planning context of the site since it would remain a field.

 

The Case Officer confirmed that the larger dog waste bins would be located off site, with the smaller caddies included in the landscaping plan.

 

Members asked the ERS officer about the noise management plan;

  • Officers had raised concerns, but due to the restrictions on the number of dogs and operating hours were satisfied with the plan for managing noise levels.
  • Onsite management of noise levels was discussed, but overall it was decided that this was not practical.

 

Member Comments

 

Members discussed the application, with the main debate taking place being regarding the noise and disruption;

  • Some members felt that the noise from the potential barking, gates, and cars would be disruptive, while others disagreed and felt this would be minimal, due to the restrictions and booking system and because not all dogs are prone to excessive barking.
  • It was also stated by some members that the noise e.g. cars, gates and barking, would ordinarily already exist in a residential area.
  • Discussion was also had over whether the proposal was necessary due to other dog walking amenities existing in the Cotswolds. Some members welcomed the proposal due to a lack of enclosed dog walking amenities, while others disagreed and were concerned over its location. However, the Interim Development Manager stated that under Policy EC5 of the Local Plan there was no reference to need, so cautioned members about putting too much weight on this element.

 

After discussing the application, three proposals were made by members;

 

1.    Councillor Ray Brassington stated that the noise management was not satisfactory and therefore proposed a temporary two year permission to allow the Council to monitor the noise levels.

 

The proposal was seconded by Councillor Coleman, who welcomed Councillor Brassington’s argument but felt confident that the applicant could prove the business was minimally disruptive to the surrounding area.

 

2.    Councillor David Fowles proposed to refuse the application. Councillor Fowles raised concerns about the noise and disruption but stated that he couldn’t see the applicant investing the money for the temporary application, as it would be prohibitively expensive to do so without certainty.

 

Councillor Julia Judd seconded the proposal stating that the application was against policies EN1, EN4 and EN5.

 

3.    Councillor Lisa Spivey proposed to permit the application due to similar cost concerns, but welcomed the proposal and did not think it would cause disruption.

 

Councillor Dilys Neill seconded the proposal, welcoming the application and stating that there were significant checks and balances to ensure that the application was not overly disruptive.

 

The Committee voted on the proposals in the order that they were proposed.

 

Proposal 1: Temporarily permit for a two year period.

 

The proposal was not passed.

 

Voting record – For 2, Against 6, Abstain 3

 

For

Against

Abstention

Patrick Coleman

Clare Turner

Daryl Corps

Ray Brassington

Ian Watson

Gary Selwyn

 

Julia Judd

Dilys Neill

 

Lisa Spivey

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

David Fowles

 

 

 

Proposal 2: Refuse.

 

The proposal was not passed.

 

Voting record- For 3, Against 7, Abstain 1

 

For

Against

Abstention

Ray Brassington

Clare Turner

Daryl Corps

David Fowles

Dilys Neill

 

Julia Judd

Ian Watson

 

 

Gary Selwyn

 

 

Lisa Spivey

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Patrick Coleman

 

 

 

Proposal 3: Permit.

 

RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application

 

Voting record- For 7,  Against 3, Abstain 1

 

For

Against

Abstention

Clare Turner

Ray Brassington

Daryl Corps

Dilys Neill

David Fowles

 

Ian Watson

Julia Judd

 

Gary Selwyn

 

 

Lisa Spivey

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Patrick Coleman

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages