Dog daycare business dealt blow in fight against animal exercise ban
The council raised concerns about potential disturbance from barking
A dog grooming business owner has failed in his appeal against a council's decision to prohibit the exercising of animals on a 2.5-hectare plot of land.
Wakefield Council had issued an enforcement notice in January last year, preventing the use of the land for dog training. The authority cited breaches of planning conditions and expressed concerns about potential disturbance from barking.
Two shelters on the land, located near Doncaster Road, were also ordered to be removed, with the council deeming them "harmful to the greenbelt”.
Christopher Beech, who was granted planning permission to convert part of Wragby Grange into a dog daycare and grooming business in 2023, challenged the council's decision. However, his appeal has been dismissed, according to a report from the Planning Inspectorate published on August 24.
An inspector noted that while the shelters were suitable for outdoor recreational purposes, they detracted from the openness of the green belt, and the overall development was considered inappropriate for the area.
Despite these findings, the inspector acknowledged a "robust" noise impact assessment submitted by Mr Beech, which indicated that nearby residents would not be significantly affected by noise.
During a site visit in July, the inspector observed that most dogs were exercising in an open paddock, with others exercised off-site. Little audible dog noise was detected upon entering and throughout the visit.
"Taking account of the range of evidence available, on this issue I conclude that the development does not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of nearby residential properties with particular reference to noise," the report stated.
Previous submissions on behalf of Mr Beech argued that the land's use was consistent with planning permission and a licence from the council's environmental health department.
The submissions also contended that the alleged use of the land was not an inappropriate form of development in the green belt and did not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbours.