Dog walking field at Land North of Horsehead Drove, Three Holes

What was proposed

The application sought to change agricultural land into a dog walking field with parking, access, storage, lighting, shelter, fencing and landscaping.

“Change of Use from Agricultural Land to a Dog Walking Field and associated car parking, access, storage container, lighting, mobile field shelter, fencing and landscaping. Location:”

“Land North of Horsehead Drove Three Holes Norfolk PE14 9JJ Applicant:”

Officer report

The site

The site is an agricultural field along Horsehead Drove, surrounded mainly by agricultural land and a small number of homes.

“The site is located along Horsehead Drove, Three Holes and currently comprises an agricultural field. The surrounding area is largely agricultural, with the exception of a small number of dwellings.”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application for the same dog walking field proposal was withdrawn in December 2025.

“25/01542/F: Application Withdrawn: 09/12/25 - Change of Use from Agricultural Land to a Dog Walking Field and associated car parking, access, storage container, lighting, mobile field shelter, fencing and landscaping.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because the countryside location was considered unsustainable and contrary to several development plan policies.

“The proposed location of the development is considered unsustainable due to its distance from development boundaries. Therefore, the application is unacceptable in principle and should be refused, being contrary to Policies LP06, LP07, LP13, LP18 and LP21 of the Local Plan.”

“The proposal would conflict with the spatial and sustainability aims of the Development Plan through its siting, some distance from the nearest development boundaries, resulting in increased car journeys into a rural area.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council supported the proposal, highways had no objection subject to conditions, and ecology and nuisance officers raised no objection subject to safeguards.

“The lighting proposed is likely to have high luminance and wildlife friendly lighting would be more appropriate in this location given the rural nature and potential for light spill some distance into the wider landscape and potential to effect nocturnal species such as badgers and bats using the adjacent drain as a commuting feature. Advise the applicant to review the Bat Conservation Trust Lighting Guidance.”

“Community Safety and Neighbourhood Nuisance Officer: No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and informatives.”

Officer report

Public views

Eighteen letters supported the facility’s demand and benefits, while one objection raised amenity, lighting, traffic, ecology and agricultural land concerns.

“EIGHTEEN letters of support and ONE letter of OBJECTION have been received at the time of writing this report.”

“Will be well used and there is demand for such a facility, • Despite living in the country, places to walk dogs are not that available for owners wanting to walk, train or socialise their dogs, • Footpaths are unsafe to walk with pets due to the amount of traffic and lack of greenspaces in the villages, along with village halls prohibiting dog walking this will be a huge contributor to dog owners, • This would be closer than other dog parks, • Supported by the public, •…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent supporting the application addressed the committee under the public speaking protocol.

Members’ debate

Members discussed agricultural land loss, the temporary change, rural employment, local benefits, noise, nearby homes, wildlife and the site’s remote location.

“Members questioned the relevance of agricultural land loss and emphasised the temporary nature of the change.”

“Several members supported the application, citing the need for rural employment, benefits to local residents, and the suitability of the site for dog walking away from sensitive wildlife areas. The debate included discussion of noise, proximity to dwellings, and the importance of supporting rural businesses and diversification of those businesses.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted to approve the application with conditions, with 10 votes in favour and one abstention.

“The Chair proposed that the application should be approved on the grounds that the application provided rural employment and was in accordance with policies LR06, 07, 13, 17 and 18 and also paragraph 89 of the NPPF. This was seconded by Councillor Storey.”

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application with conditions to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (10 votes for and 1 abstention).”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application contrary to the officer recommendation because it provided rural employment and accorded with the policies and national guidance cited.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved, contrary to recommendation, subject to conditions to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair, for the following reason:”

“The application provides rural employment and was in accordance with policies LR06, 07, 13, 17 and 18 and also paragraph 89 of the NPPF.”

Minutes