Newark and Sherwood District Council planning committee refuses retrospective plans for change of use of agricultural field in Epperstone to dog exercise area

Retrospective planning permission for a dog exercise area in a rural community has been turned down.

Newark and Sherwood District Council’s planning committee met this week to review plans for the change of use of an agricultural field at Highfields in Epperstone, to a dog exercise area.

The site is currently operated as ‘Mutts Go Nuts’ and for the past few years has been used as an area for people to visit and exercise their dogs in a secure location, with hourly slots available to book everyday, from 8am to 6pm.

Permission is being sought retrospectively and the case was referred to the planning committee by the ward member, Roger Jackson.

The application had received over 20 letters of objection by neighbours and consultees, including Epperstone Parish Council — leading to amendments to the original plans being made.

These amended plans include new fencing to create an enclosed area around two hard standing parking spaces to stop dogs from being able to approach the entrance gate which opens onto the lane, following complaints from the neighbouring livery yard that barking dogs had spooked horses.

The erection of a 1.8 metre metal mesh entrance gate as well as two ‘Grasscrete’ parking spaces had already been completed before the planning application was made.

An additional change to the original plans includes new screening to protect the privacy of those living at Netherfield Farm. This would be made up of new tree planting, and temporary screens to block the view until the trees had grown to a suitable height.

Committee members heard from Epperstone Parish Council’s chairman, Paul Bracegirdle, and Neil Iliffe, who lives next to the field at Netherfield Farm.

Mr Iliffe said that the “number of objections needed to be noted and recognised”, users of the dog field could see into his yard and through his house windows, and that noise from the field, 10 hours a day, seven days a week, was “excessive”.

Concerns were also raised about safety on the narrow country lane due to an increase in traffic from people visiting the dog area.

The applicant, Adrian Worrall, also spoke at the meeting and defended his position.

He said: “I feel the field brings value. Many local people and families are given the opportunity to exercise their domestic pets in a safe environment away from traffic, away from the public, away from livestock.

“Many field users bring their families, some are elderly and come with walking sticks, waste is collected, the field is insured and taxed. It is a simple, well maintained grass field. No buildings, no paraphernalia.

“We as a family are reasonable people — we are offering green space and public use in a controlled environment.”

Additionally, he argued that very little noise was actually produced by dogs in the field and that “this image of constantly barking dogs 10 hours a day, in reality, does not happen”. He added that if the field was home to livestock the noise would be far greater and 24 hours a day.

After hearing arguments both for and against, Tim Wildgust said: “I don’t like the way this was put in place without planning permission.

“Barking is difficult to predict and when there are potentially up to ten sessions a day, I am concerned that the residents are experiencing harm.”

Keith Melton agreed, saying he was “not happy to discuss retrospective planning applications.”

Sue Saddington was more supportive of the plans, questioning why there was a need at all for businesses such as dog fields to apply for permission.

Committee vice-chairman David Moore asked that if permission were to be granted, the fencing should be constructed before any business was allowed to resume, and that a restriction should be put in place to stop the use of the field on Sundays.

Following the debate, the members voted to refuse the application on the grounds that it would have a negative impact on the neighbouring residential amenity and horse livery.

The applicant does have a right to appeal against the decision.