Woodland dog park at Land At Kilnhill, Laurencekirk

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for deer fencing and gates and permission to change woodland into a dog park.

“Full Planning Permission for Erection of Deer Fencing/Gates (Retrospective) Change of Use of Woodland to Dog Park at Land At, Kilnhill, Laurencekirk, AB30 1EL”

Officer report

The site and access

The 1.2-hectare woodland lies near Laurencekirk, beside homes, with fencing, gates, a customer car park and access from a private road.

“The site lies approximately 1.2 km northwest of Laurencekirk and encompasses 1.2 hectares of woodland. It is surrounded by four residential properties, two of which share a boundary with the site, with a third located in close proximity. The site is enclosed by a deer-proof post-and-wire fence A metal gate supported by timber posts has been installed at the north-west corner to facilitate access for equipment.”

Officer report

Earlier complaint

A complaint alleged an unauthorised woodland change of use and fencing, and the case could be reopened if permission was refused.

“The case was subsequently closed following submission of this application; however, the applicant was advised that the case would be re-opened should the application be refused. The applicant has submitted a Dog Park Management Plan (WAG Woodland Dog Park) in which it is argued that the proposal is for the sensitive use of a 2.5 acre fenced woodland area to provide a safe, low impact exercise space for dogs, supported by strong community interest and positive feedback…”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended refusal because nearby homes could experience intrusive noise that could not be reliably assessed or mitigated.

“Given the close proximity of the nearest homes and the generally low background noise levels in the area, noise generated by the dog park is likely to be highly perceptible and intrusive at the adjoining properties. This would remain the case even when accounting for the surrounding terrain, with peak-time activity particularly affecting the amenity of neighbouring gardens.”

“Environmental Health have further advised that no methodology that could be applied within a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) would effectively or accurately predict the level of noise likely to arise from the dog park. This is due to the number of variables involved, including (but not limited to) the nature of the site, the activities undertaken, and the character of the noise generated by dogs.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant described noise-reduction measures, woodland operation and management limits, while an objector supported refusal and raised noise and access concerns.

Members’ debate

Members questioned noise assessment, enforcement, complaints, management, dog numbers, booking arrangements and road safety before considering competing motions.

“Members sought clarity on why Environmental Health could not carry out a noise impact assessment, they were advised that no methodology within an assessment could be applied effectively or would accurately predict the level of noise likely to arise from the dog park, this was due to a number of variables involved, including the nature and character of the site and the activities undertaken, and therefore would be unreliable.”

“Members asked questions regarding enforcement powers available to the Council if approved, number of complaints received from existing dog parks close to residential amenity, management plan of the dog park, limits on number of dogs to the site, and the reference to the hazardous and polluting policy quoted in the report.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused permission because the proposal could significantly harm nearby residential amenity and failed to comply with national and local policies.

“Committee agreed to REFUSE Full Planning Permission.”

“The planning authority considers that the application is for a development that is not in accordance with National Planning Framework 4 and the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan 2023. The proposal has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts upon the residential amenity of nearby properties, which could not be effectively mitigated through planning conditions.”

Minutes