Secure dog walking field at Land To The East of Ryston Road, Denver

“The application is for the change of use of approximately 1.04ha agricultural land to a secure dog walking (sui generis) use at land to the east of Ryston End in Denver.”

“The application is for the change of use of approximately 1.04ha agricultural land to a secure dog walking (sui generis) use at land to the east of Ryston End in Denver.”

“The site is located to the east of Ryston Road. The application site comprises of an existing access from Ryston Road and 1.04ha of agricultural land. The wider setting of the site encompasses agricultural land bound by woodland to the west, protected under a Tree Preservation Order (reference TPO/00085/W1) and trees along the north, east, and south boundaries. Furthermore, Denver Footpath 21 is located along the south of the application site.”

“The application seeks to change agricultural land to a secure dog walking field at Land E of Ryston Road in Denver. Local and national planning policies are largely supportive of rural based businesses. The proposed development is in Denver which is accessible by footpaths in and around Denver and Downham Market.”

“No objections were raised by Public Rights of Way (PROW), IDB, Historic Environment, Natural England, and the Council's Ecologist and Arboricultural Officers, subject to the imposition of conditions.”

“Denver Parish Council do not feel that the changes to the highway access have addressed the issues raised and so OBJECT to this application.”

“Highways Authority: NO OBJECTION subject to condition.”

“Objection comments summarised: • Traffic around the school time on Ryston Road - concern with additional traffic. • Plenty of open fields and local woods for dog walking. • Concern for nature and wildlife • Visual impact of fencing over the field • Losing the space for public and walkers would be a shame • Land is too close to a footpath and would allow roaming dogs to conflict with other dogs on the footpath - this could result in a dog ending up on the A10.”

“Increase noise, disturbance and traffic. • Not in character with the area. • Use of the access would have an impact on surrounding neighbours privacy, security and use of their home freely. • Activity on this site would directly overlook homes and gardens throughout the day. • Proposal conflicts with DM15, LP21, LP41 and DM2 of the local development plans. • The area is known as Ryston Park. It has been an open area, used as pasture and grazing for generations.”

“The Committee raised concerns about noise impact on neighbouring properties and the effectiveness of proposed fencing and landscaping. Officers clarified that while landscaping would provide visual screening, it would not significantly attenuate noise, and management plans would be required to address potential nuisance.”

“Members discussed the risk of dogs jumping fences and the interaction between dogs on the field and those on the adjacent footpath. Officers confirmed that a two-metre-high stock fence with timber posts and mesh would be installed, and further details would be agreed through planning conditions. The management plan would also address operational aspects, including the number of dogs allowed on site at any one time.”

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (13 votes for and 1 abstention).”

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended subject to the correction to Condition 2, as detailed in the correspondence received after the publication of the agenda.”