Offices, stores and dog exercise at The Smallholding A43 Stamford Road, Duddington

What was proposed

The application proposed adapting existing barns for offices and storage, demolishing other buildings for parking, and creating a fenced dog exercise field.

“Planning permission is sought for works to barns and change of use of land for dog walking and exercise area.”

“A Planning Statement has been provided to support the proposal (Acorus, 2025). Works are proposed to 2no. existing buildings with Class E (g) permission to make them fit for purpose. A further building would be used for secure storage. The southern building (Barn 1) would be used as an office, WC and staff area, with the building to the north (Barn 2) used for commercial storage.”

Officer report

The site

The 0.9-hectare rural site lies east of Duddington beside the A43, with countryside on three sides and a public footpath to the south.

“The site is neighboured on three sides by the open countryside and the character at the site is rural. Public Right of Way Footpath MX17 runs along the south of the site.”

“The site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1. It is not within the Duddington Conservation Area, or area controlled by an Article 4 Direction, nor is it within the Duddington Neighbourhood Plan Settlement Boundary. There are no known heritage assets within close proximity to the site. Whilst there are established trees along the site entrance, they are not afforded statutory protection, and the site does not contain Priority Habitat.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

A permitted-development use notification for two agricultural buildings was answered in 2024, while an earlier mobile-home retention application was refused in 1993.

“Ref: NE/24/00847/PNX Commencement of Use notification for Change the use of agricultural buildings to Class E (g) under Class R of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (flexible use) Answered – 16 October 2024.”

“Ref: 93/00665/RTN Retention of mobile home Refused – 11 November 1993.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, concluding that the proposal complied with planning policies and that remaining access concerns could be controlled by conditions.

“The proposed development complies with the relevant development plan policies and is consistent with the provisions in the NPPF. Any remaining concerns regarding the surfacing of the access can be overcome via the imposition of conditions on consent.”

“It is recommended that the application is APPROVED, subject to the conditions as set out in Section 11 of the published report.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, environmental protection, waste management and ecology responses identified matters to address, while environmental protection and waste teams raised no objection in principle.

“A noise assessment prepared by Acoustic Associates was provided (2 March 2026). Following discussion with the Consultant, the Officer confirms that Environmental Protection raise no objection to the application. An informative is required to alert the applicant to the fact that if complaints regarding noise are received, the Environmental Protection team will investigate under the relevant legislation and take enforcement action where necessary.”

“No objection in principle, subject to the waste storage, bin presentation, and compliance with conditions proposed.”

Officer report

Objections received

The parish council and three neighbours raised concerns about noise, barking, access, highway safety, parking, waste, visual impact and residential amenity.

“The Council objects for the following summarised reasons: • Inadequate access onto the A43. • The entry should be protected by double gating for security reasons, and the gates should be protected with secure locking and regularly updated gate codes. • Given the close proximity to the A43, the site should be protected by 2-metre- high fencing which is to be kept in good repair with no gapping. • Unclear how animal waste is to be stored and disposed of.”

“13no. neighbours were notified by letter and 3no. letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised as follows: • Impact on residential amenity, in particular, noise impacts. • Harm to the viability of the existing public house (The Royal Oak). • Inadequate information submitted regarding noise and mitigation measures • Highway safety and parking concerns. Additional vehicular movements. Insufficient parking on-site. • Overdevelopment.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council chair and a parishioner spoke about barking, traffic, the narrow access lane and proposed operating hours.

What members debated

Members recognised residents’ concerns about barking but considered there were no planning reasons for refusal, while discussing limits on dogs and operating hours.

“Members however, felt that there were no planning reasons for refusal of the application. Diversification of rural settings was encouraged, and whilst it was accepted that the A43 was a busy road, the speed had been reduced and it was classified as a red route.”

“Members considered that the number of dogs being walked should be reduced to eight dogs and that operating hours also be reduced to between 9am and 2pm.”

Minutes

The votes

Members carried an amendment to restrict dog numbers and operating hours, then carried the amended substantive motion.

“An amendment was proposed by Councillor Howell and seconded by Councillor McLean that a condition be added to restrict the number of dogs on the site and to reduce the number of hours with the wording thereof being delegated to officers.”

“This amendment then became the substantive motion, which was also put to the vote and declared carried.”

Minutes

The decision

Delegated approval was granted subject to limits on hours and dog numbers, the report’s conditions and any necessary amendments to those conditions.

“RESOLVED that delegated power be given to the Executive Director of Place and Economy to approve the application subject to the:”

“(i) addition of a condition to limit the hours of use. (ii) maximum number of dogs allowed on the site being limited to ensure the intensity of the use accords with the recommendations of the submitted noise assessment (reference SEM/J3898/18834). (iii) conditions contained within section 11 of the report (including any amendments to those conditions deemed necessary).”

Minutes