Dog training and boarding at 32 Whitecote Lane, Bramley, Leeds

What was proposed

The application sought dog training in the rear paddock, dog boarding in the stable and garage, new outbuildings, lighting and boundary treatment.

“This application has been brought to plans panel at the request of Councillor Kevin Ritchie,Councillor Tom Hinchcliffe and Councillor Adele Rae who have raised concerns that the use would be unacceptable in close proximity to residential properties due to likely noise and disturbance from barking dogs throughout the day 3.”

“These boarding areas consist of the existing attached side garage to the applicant’s property and a stable area to the rear within a larger block of existing stables. The scheme includes the demolition of an existing outbuilding and store area, including a garage, to create a new combined store utilising the existing volume on site. 7.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a dwelling with a rear paddock, stables and storage buildings in a residential enclave within the Green Belt.

“Six new external pole mounted flood lights, 2.5m in height, are to be installed to the northern and eastern boundaries of the dog training area to provide security/working lighting. The applicant proposes lighting shielding to prevent light overspill and has submitted a preliminary lighting scheme. 9.”

“The property is a residential dwelling which currently benefits from a lawful paddock area to the rear along with a number of stables and storage buildings associated with the paddock and residential curtilage. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: Planning applications: 14.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Contaminated Land and Highways raised no objections subject to conditions, while Flood Risk Management raised no objections.

“CONSULTATION RESPONSES: Contaminated Land – No objections subject to conditions Flood Risk Management – No objections Highways – No objections subject to conditions PUBLIC/LOCAL RESPONSE: A site notice was put on display in the immediate vicinity of the application site on 12/08/2025. Comments in Support: 22.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A local resident and [name withheld] spoke against the application, followed by the applicant and her representative.

What members discussed

Members discussed noise, temporary monitoring, lighting, acoustic fencing, parking, dog numbers and controls over training and boarding.

“Questions and comments from Panel Members then followed, with officers responding to the questions raised, which included the following: • The proposed 12-month temporary permission was considered an appropriate timeframe to monitor any noise complaints; a permanent application would be required thereafter, informed by logged complaints and officer assessment.”

“The layout could accommodate the required four parking spaces, meeting Highways requirements. • Officers explained that a range of mitigation measures, including dog numbers, management controls, and acoustic fencing had been incorporated, with the temporary permission providing a safeguard should any issues arise.”

Minutes

The vote

A motion to follow the officer recommendation was moved and seconded, and the Panel voted unanimously to grant permission.

“A motion was put forward to move the officer recommendation, as per the submitted report. This was moved and seconded, and it was unanimously RESOLVED – To grant permission.”

Minutes