The appellant argued that activities on the site were either incidental to the established kennels and a dog training building or were permitted development. Referring to Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment , the inspector found that there were three separate planning units on the land - a dwelling, the kennels and the indoor training area together with open land. He failed to see how outdoor training was ancillary to the indoor training building's use.
The evidence indicated that activities such as agility classes and behavioural training were taking place to a substantial degree on open ground outside the building. The inspector ruled that the training activity, as a primary use, had been taking place on the open land and opined that it was part of a material change of use.
The evidence also suggested that dog shows, tournaments and entertainments had become a substantial use of the land. In the inspector's view, these could not be ancillary to the kennels or training building because they were functionally different. He held that this was also part of a material change of use of the land.
Regardless of whether the site comprised one or three planning units, he found that a material change of use had occurred because the mixed use could not be regarded as ancillary or minimal in the context of lawful development on the site. He also noted the strength of local residents' objections and deemed that activity and noise levels at the site had become unacceptable.
DCS Number 100-058-043
Inspector Paul Morris; Inquiry