Appeal rejected over 'dog walking field' plan near Penshaw Monument

The national Planning Inspectorate, in a decision published this month (April, 2025), dismissed an appeal against a previous council planning ruling for land off Back Lane, near Penshaw Monument.

Back in August, 2024, Sunderland City Council's planning department refused an application aiming to change the use of agricultural land to create a "secure dog walking field" with an access track and parking area.

Planning documents from the applicant said the development would include “one bookable field to be used for dog walking and exercise” and confirmed the fenced-off field would be "rentable for exclusive use" during daylight hours offering 60-minute sessions, with an online booking system to control the number of visitors and traffic movements.

Applicants added the plans would "alleviate pressures on other public open spaces" while providing a "useful facility for those with mobility issues or young children [...] as well as being a safe space for any anxious dogs, service dogs or dogs with behavioural issues."

However, the plans were refused by Sunderland City Council's planning department on August 22, 2024, after council planning officers ruled the plans would "constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt".

This included the "effect of activity along the track and car park resulting in an intrusive effect into the countryside, materially different to that which would reasonably be associated with a field or farm access".

Another refusal reason included the plan failing to demonstrate that "biodiversity net gain" (a way of creating and improving natural habitats) could be achieved on the site over the next thirty years, with reference to the "insufficient" level of detail provided in the applicant's 'habitats monitoring management plan'.

Following the council refusal, the applicant lodged an appeal and the Secretary of State appointed a planning inspector to rule on the matter.

An appeal decision report published on April 11, 2025, has confirmed that the appeal has been dismissed and that the dog walking field plan has been refused.

The planning inspector did not agree with council planners on Green Belt issues and said the plan would "not be inappropriate development", with a "limited change in the appearance of the site" and the "retention of its open rural character".

However, the planning inspector raised concerns about the proposal "failing to demonstrate that the necessary BNG (biodiversity net gain) could be suitably maintained."

Biodiversity Net Gain is a government policy which aims to "create and improve natural habitats" and requires developers to "make sure development has a measurably positive impact (‘net gain’) on biodiversity, compared to what was there before development."

In the case of the Penshaw dog walking field, the planning inspector noted the site "falls within an identified wildlife corridor and is within the impact risk zone of Dawson’s Plantation Quarry", a site of special scientific interest.

The planning inspector made reference to the appellant's habitats management and monitoring plan, and measures around the "proposed habitats to be retained, created or enhanced".

This included measures to "minimise disturbance and ensure successful delivery of the target habitats", such as signage to "redirect" footfall away from relevant areas.

A 'preliminary ecological appraisal' of the site also recommended "compensatory measures", including new planting.

While it was noted there was "no dispute that the proposed mixed scrub and modified grassland" would have a positive impact in relation to BNG, the planning inspector said "the dispute is whether the mitigation measures can be achieved and maintained".

The appeal decision report adds: "The field proposed for dog walking would be largely open, and it is the appellant's intention for dogs to roam freely.

"Given the extent to which the dogs and their owners would utilise the field and vehicles within the parking area, even if the BNG Metric shows that the required habitat net gain could be achieved, and I were to agree that a condition could secure the habitat creation, I am not satisfied that the created habitats could be maintained for the desired period and to the same value, without being diminished through use."

The planning inspector also questioned figures within key documents linked to biodiversity and said the "proposed development would fail to provide adequate provision for BNG".

The appeal decision report continues: "I conclude that whilst I have found the proposed development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and therefore would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it, the proposal would fail to demonstrate that the necessary BNG could be suitably maintained.

"The lack of harm to the Green Belt is therefore neutral in my overall balance and does not outweigh the subsequent harm to the wildlife corridor.

"For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

"I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed."

For more information on the planning application, or appeal decision, visit Sunderland City Council's planning portal website and search reference: 24/00625/FUL

The full appeal decision report can also be found via the Planning Inspectorate's website.