Plans for 'dog walking field' near Penshaw Monument refused over green belt concerns
Plans for a bookable “dog walking field” on the outskirts of Sunderland have been refused by city development chiefs over Green Belt and biodiversity concerns.
Sunderland City Council’s planning department has blocked an application for a plot of land near Back Lane and Hill Lane in the Penshaw area.
A planning, design and access statement submitted to council officials said the development would include “one bookable field to be used for dog walking and exercise” secured by a fence and gates, with customers provided with access codes upon booking sessions.
Supporting documents said the dog walking field would be “rentable for exclusive use” during daylight hours and “would offer 60 minutes booking sessions with a cross-over period in between each session”.
An online booking system was also proposed to control the number of visitors and traffic movements to and from the site, with a maximum of five dogs allowed in the field at any one time (per single booking).
During a council consultation exercise on the plans, no objections were raised by the council’s environmental health team or highways department over noise issues or highway safety.
After considering the planning application and assessing it against planning policies, however, Sunderland City Council’s planning department refused it on August 22, 2024.
A council decision report said the main reason for refusal included the development impacting the “openness” of the Green Belt and that “very special circumstances” had not been demonstrated to outweigh this harm.
The report said Green Belt policy aims to prevent “urban sprawl” by keeping areas of land permanently open, as well as “safeguarding the countryside from encroachment”.
Council planning officers concluded that the dog walking field plan would “constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt”, with concerns raised about the proposed access track and car parking area.
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”.
The second reason for refusal included the development 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.
Those behind the development previously said there was an “increasing demand for secure dog walking fields” which help to “alleviate pressures on other public open spaces and recreational areas”.
A planning, design and access statement from the applicant added the site would provide 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”.
It was argued that the plan would support the local community and that the proposed parking area would accommodate up to two cars and would be “large enough to accommodate a panel van used by professional dog walkers”.
Applicants added “no permanent fixed buildings or structures” were proposed at the rural site and that the new access track would be made of ‘grasscrete’, a blend of concrete and grass, to “ensure it has a discreet appearance in the wider grassland and landscape”.
However, council planners raised concerns about the development leading to an “intensification of the use of the site” and said the scheme would “result in the urbanisation of the countryside”.
The council decision report adds: “The framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
“Although in this case, the effects on openness and the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment would be moderate, the framework requires substantial weight is given to any Green Belt harm.
“It is officer opinion that as a result of the development, there would be harm to the character of the area.
“In this case, substantial weight attached to Green Belt harm, along with other harm, is not clearly outweighed by these other considerations.
“Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist”.
Council planners added that the “level of detail provided” by the applicant in a Habitats Monitoring Management Plan was “insufficient to demonstrate that the required Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) can be achieved and maintained on the site for the specified period of 30 years”.
Although it was acknowledged that there would be “no harm to the significance of Penshaw Monument or any other nearby designated heritage assets”, concerns were raised about the development and the new access track and parking area.
This included the plan “leading to an intensification of the use of the site” and the plan failing to “respect the positive characteristics of the natural environment or surroundings”.
Council planners noted there was “no increase or decrease in employment” proposed in the submitted application for the development and that “no recognised need for such a facility in this locality has been demonstrated”.
The council decision report added that “on recent site visits the area identified for proposed car parking has already been constructed without the benefit of planning permission”.
The applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.
For more information on the planning application or council decision, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 24/00625/FUL