Thank you for your interest in this story
To continue reading this article, subscribe to the Stray Ferret for as little as £1 a week
Already a subscriber? Log in here.
14
Oct
Government rejects plan for new dog exercise area near Ripon
A government planning inspector has rejected plans for a new dog exercise area near Ripon.
The proposal, which was lodged by Low Lindrick Farms, would have seen the scheme created on land off Galphay Lane in Studley Roger.
According to the plans, the site would have been changed from agricultural land to provide an enclosed dog walking and exercise area.
A 1.8 metre high perimeter fence, gates and timber shelter would have also been installed. Car parking was also proposed.
However, North Yorkshire Council refused the plan in December 2025 on the grounds that the the dog walking area had noise implications on nearby residents on Doublegates Avenue and a new development nearby.
The land of Galphay Lane.
In May this year, the developer took the decision to the government’s Planning Inspectorate, which deals with planning disputes.
It said the the reasons for refusal were not supported and that the scheme would help create a “needed recreational facility for dog owners” and provide “economic benefits through rural diversification”.
The developer added:
The development is modest in scale, reversible in nature, and capable of operating without unacceptable impacts through the mitigation already proposed.
The refusal reasons are not supported by technical evidence and fail to properly weigh the findings of the council’s own specialist consultees.
However, M.J Francis, a government planning inspector, rejected the appeal on the grounds that the proposal would “harm the living conditions” of nearby properties and would be at risk of flooding.
The inspector acknowledged that the scheme would help diversify a local business and contribute to the local economy.
However, they added:
Notwithstanding the benefits that are set out above, I have found that the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regards to noise and disturbance. Moreover, I have found that the site is at risk from flooding and conflicts with the framework’s flood risk policies.
Therefore, the benefits of granting permission would be substantially outweighed by adverse effects, when assessed against the framework’s decision-making policies.
0