Your name

Your email

First Line of Address

Your Postcode

Subject

Message (Edit just as you wish)
Dear Sir/Madam 23/0238/FUL: Change of use of land to provide a dog day-care, training, and exercise facility, including resurfacing, parking provision and new staff building I am writing to object to the above proposed development on green belt for the following reasons. This objection should be taken as my separate and individual submission in accordance with your agreed policy. The development and accompanying business would have a negative impact on the Shenley Conservation area and be in breach of the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) in relation to damaging the rural landscape and quietness reference in Codes SC6 Boundaries and Edges and SC7 Rural Landscape. The proposed site is an open rural field adjacent to a designated wildlife area. Having up to 30 dogs running around the site would severely damage this environment, not only for the wildlife such as hedgehogs, birds, frogs and newts, but also for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, who would be subject to dogs barking at them (as dogs are prone to do). This is more than likely to result in accidents for horse riders in particular and is an unfair and inappropriate development to introduce in an area with at least 2 stables close by. There is also the issue of the inappropriately high and industrial fencing and increased traffic caused by up to 30 cars a day arriving to drop off and pick up their dog(s). Although the applicant is offering a collect and delivery service, this will be at a cost and how many will use it is completely un-known. The applicant also proposes that buses can be used to access the site, but the nearest bus operates only once every 2 hours and the other bus stops are over half a mile away and arrive at best every 40 minutes or so. People using doggy day care are not likely to be able to invest over 2 hours a day in bringing and collecting their dogs from this or any daycare centre. Enhancement and preservation of Rural Shenley is a key policy in the SNP when considering development that includes a matrix of considerations including built form, wild life, environment and sustainability credentials. This area is also part of the Shenley Circular Walk and the peaceful rural environment attracts people to Shenley from far and wide, bringing customers to the pub, tearooms and other businesses. Furthermore, the openness of the Green Belt created by the fencing, the gate, buildings and car park would be impaired and does not follow the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The applicant has already erected a high industrial type fence around the site with 2.4m (8ft) entrance gates. This is not permitted development in relation to the green belt or the conservation area and shows little regard therefore for the neighbourhood and the policies that are supported by local residents. Furthermore, as the Rectory Lane boundary is along a highway permitted development only covers fencing below 1 metre high so what has been installed requires planning permission and as it stands is illegal. The fence will be even more noticeable in wintertime and any ‘rural’ views into the site that exist will be destroyed by car parking and the buildings proposed – all of which iscontrary to the requirements of the NPPF Clause 149 and 150 to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. In addition, the applicant’s claim that the NPPF clause 150 regarding “ Sport and Recreation” justifies the exceptional circumstances required for development in the green belt is incorrect. This exception only applies when both humans benefit and to accept this as a reason for approval would be a misinterpretation of the NPPF that would certainly leave the Council open to challenge. The issue of noise in this case 30 dogs has been a factor why many planning applications across the UK have rightly been refused for kennels. The very essence of the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan is to “preserve and enhance” the rural character of Shenley. This includes fields with hedges (not metal fences), low fencing and vistas across farmland and open countryside. There can be no doubt the proposed application breaches the fundament principals in the Shenley Neighbourhood Plan. Finally, the applicant suggests that there are parallels to draw with the dog day care centre that was approved by Hertsmere Borough Council in 2021 on a site adjacent to Battlers Green Farm. However, this location is adjacent to some semi-derelict farm buildings, an existing car park and a small retail centre with a vet. There is a significant difference between the location in Radlett and Rural Shenley and no comparison can be made between the two. Indeed, the fact that there is another doggy daycare centre so close by (as well as others in South Mimms and St Albans) is another reason for refusal. These are all significant reasons to refuse this application in the heart of Rural Shenley, in the Green Belt, adjacent to a Conservation Area and designated wildlife area and would be in direct contravention to both the letter and the spirit of both the NPPF and the SNP which are there to preserve and enhance the countryside for everyone to enjoy. I therefore call on the Hertsmere Planning Committee to refuse this application. Yours sincerely,

I agree to the Privacy Policy