Dartmoor planners reject South Brent dog training field after neighbour complaints

Dartmoor planners have refused permission for land on the edge of South Brent to be used as a dog training operation, saying neighbours have the right to enjoy their gardens without dogs barking and people shouting commands.

Mr and Mrs Chris Whiteley applied for retrospective permission for the change of use of part of an agricultural field at their home at Marshfield, Hillside, South Brent.

READ NEXT: Pictures: Dartmoor primary school unveils ‘exciting’ play space in restored historic building

They wanted to run a dog agility and training operation that would be open from 8am to 8pm seven days a week, but restricted to five sessions a day and 20 a week.

South Brent Parish Council said it was “unjustified commercial development in the open countryside detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring properties” and raised issues over dog training taking place outside normal working hours.

There were 13 objection letters and 14 in support of the plans submitted to Dartmoor National Park Authority.

Planning officers had recommended the scheme be approved with conditions to mitigate any noise or visual impact, such as hedging, trees and wildflower meadows.

They said the equipment was moveable and could be taken away should the business cease to operate.

The nearest properties to the application site were 76 metres away, with the Whiteleys’ land boundary running along the rear gardens.

One of the neighbours, Sally Hope Johnson, told the authority’s development management committee that dog training activity had been ongoing at the site for nearly a year.

She said it neither protected the character and appearance of the landscape, with all the large brightly coloured equipment, nor the tranquillity of the area.

She said that, contrary to officers’ advice, there were other comparable venues less than an hour away which could be used by the applicants to train their own dogs.

“Neighbours have lost the enjoyment of their gardens and the tranquillity of the area.

“The customers say how good it is for them and their dogs’ health and wellbeing, but the fact is it has a detrimental effect on the neighbours. We are the locals, not the dog visitors who mainly come by vehicle and return home.”

She claimed the environmental health noise report ignored neighbours’ views and was carried out on the wettest day in January when there were few sessions.

Amanda Burdon, representing the applicant, said Mrs Whiteley was a talented trainer who would be training her own dogs and others on the land.

She said it had been sited “as far away from residents as possible” and was a small-scale, low-impact rural business.

There were no objections from county highways despite some concerns over parking.

Park members said they wanted to support rural businesses but did not feel the mitigation measures were sufficient.

Chair Will Dracup said: “I’m struggling to find ones that are, given that dogs bark and people command them.”

Michael Fife Cook said people had come there hoping for a peaceful life and then a dog training operation had been set up at the end of their gardens.

Dan Thomas said it might have provoked less objection if the applicants had asked for weekdays only and normal working hours.

The plan was refused.