Dog-walking area fails to win planning permission

Nicholas Thomas, local democracy reporter

A new dog walking area is an “unjustified” loss of farmland and will affect users of a public right of way, councillors have decided.

Members of Newport City Council’s planning committee rejected a retrospective application to convert a field in Llanmartin into an exercise area for pets.

The conversion took place at Church Farm in August 2023 and a business, Explore by Paw, reportedly opened to “positive reviews and a regular customer base”.

Senior planning officer Joanne Davidson said the business is “already operating” and offers customers bookable slots for up to 10 dogs at a time.

[mid-content-banner]

Popular

Emily Hammick, the planning agent for applicant A Willett, told the committee the site is popular with customers and had earned positive reviews online.

She claimed the business “offers a much-needed facility for responsible dog owners, without compromising the surrounding environment”.

Ms Hammick also said the conversion was a “valuable and appropriate use of land” which had brought positive benefits to the farm through a “diversification” of income.

However, Ms Davidson said the site is “agricultural and large-scale”, and the land is of “very good quality”.

Such land is considered a “nationally important natural resource” and planning rules generally state “considerable weight” should be given to protecting it from development, she told the committee.

The committee heard two neighbours had objected to the application, citing concerns about light pollution from headlights, noise from barking dogs, and a loss of privacy from the relocation of a public right of way.

Ms Davidson accepted noise and light pollution generated at the dog-walking area were “not likely to be significantly intrusive”, and said the land was already agricultural, so “some activity can be expected”.

She added the application “appears to rely on a diversion” of the current public footpath, which cuts “through the middle of the field”.

[lower-mid-content-banner]

Altered route

Another council department is reportedly considering a separate application for that altered route.

Ms Hammick challenged the officers’ assessment of the land, arguing there had been “no permanent development” and the site “can return to full agricultural use at any time”.

She also said the formal process of relocating the right of way had not met any opposition to date, and claimed the dog-walking area is “fully fenced”, which “eliminates the risk of conflict” with other members of the public.

Cllr William Routley, who represents the Bishton and Langstone ward, also spoke favourably of the dog-walking area, calling the conversion “worthwhile” and claiming “you wouldn’t even know it was there unless you sought it out”.

The work is “reversible” and represents “only a very small amount” of Church Farm, he added.

Committee member Cllr Trevor Watkins called the dog-walking area a “good idea” and a “safe place”, but said he had concerns about parking and winter opening hours.

Cllr Jason Jordan asked whether a decision on planning permission could be deferred while the right of way’s future was decided – but Ms Davidson suggested this “isn’t something we would recommend” given the “quite long and drawn-out” legal process involved.

“You could say the diversion should have been applied for earlier… but that hasn’t happened,” she added.

Ms Hammick told the committee a council officer had temporarily stopped the existing right of way, “which then allows the public to use the new proposed route”.

Following lengthy arguments for and against the conversion, committee members were initially unwilling to propose approving or refusing the development.

Ultimately, a majority agreed with the officers’ recommendation to refuse planning permission.