| No. | Condition Text |
|---|
| 1. | The site is located outside of the development limits defined by GSP1. Here, development is only acceptable in principle if it comprises agricultural or forestry development, the provision of utilities and highway infrastructure or where specific policies in the local plan indicate otherwise. Whilst the proposal would have the potential to alleviate some of the recreational pressures on internationally designated ecological sites by directing local residents to this specific site and therefore could comply with Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS11 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GSP5, this would be outweighed by the loss of 0.91Ha of best and most versatile agricultural land. It has not been demonstrated that a clearly defined need for the dog exercise facility exists or that the proposed development is necessary, or that areas of poorer quality agricultural land cannot be used instead.
The proposal is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policies CS6 and CS12 and Local Plan Part 2 (2021) Policy GSP1. |
| 2. | Furthermore, the proposal would have a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of nearby residential properties by virtue of noise resulting from dogs in such close proximity to nearby dwellings and through additional vehicle movements to and from the site and the associated starting of engines and slamming of doors. As such, the use would have an unsatisfactory relationship with the surrounding residential properties and the associated amenity harms would not realistically be able to be mitigated. The application is therefore contrary to Core Strategy (2015) Policy CS9, Local Plan Part 2 Policy A1 and National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 135 (December 2024). |
| 3. | STATEMENT OF POSITIVE ENGAGEMENT (REFUSALS): In accordance with the NPPF, in determining this application for planning permission, the Borough Council has approached it in a positive and proactive way and where possible has sought solutions to problems to achieve the aim of approving sustainable development. Unfortunately, despite this, in this particular case the development is not considered to represent sustainable or an acceptable form of development and has been refused for the reasons set out above. |
