Plans for a nine-acre dog exercise field on the outskirts of a Fenland town have been refused because they go against planning policies.
In June Sean Saxby of MJS Investments (March) Ltd applied for a change of use of land to a dog exercise area, installation of secure fencing up to 1.8m high (max), shelters, and formation of new access and car parking on land east of Mill Hill roundabout in Wimblington Road, March – opposite the Priory Golf site.
A design and access statement drawn up by TMV in support of the proposals explained the site covers nine acres and the aim was to provide “a safe, accessible, and enjoyable space for both dogs and their owners”.
It went on: “The development of this dog park aligns with the local community’s need for dedicated areas for canine recreation, promoting responsible pet ownership, and enhancing the overall liveability of the area.”
The land is currently agricultural but the statement argued the change of use is appropriate use of the site and will provide additional recreational space for locals with easy access by road, foot, and public transport as there is a bus stop adjacent to it.
But despite gaining support from dog owners the application was turned down by Fenland District Council planners this week.
In its decision notice, the planning authority listed various planning policies and also Fenland’s supplementary planning document which states the council’s aim is: “To ensure development makes a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area and does not, either in design or scale terms, adversely impact on the street scene, settlement pattern or landscape character of the area.”
It goes on: “The development includes the installation of significant lengths of fencing, parking provision, shelters and lighting and positioned in a prominent location visible on all approaches on current undeveloped agricultural land.
“Thus, by virtue of the overall scale and siting of the proposed development, the scheme does not respect the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and farmland as development on this land would result in a distinct urbanisation of existing open and undeveloped agricultural land and will adversely impact and dominate the existing street scene, settlement pattern and landscape character of the area.”
The decision notice concludes: “The application was clearly contrary to the relevant planning policies and the Local Planning Authority working positively and proactively with the applicants would have afforded no opportunity to overcome these problems.”
