Doggy day care service in Chorley saved after planning saga resolved
A dog-minding business in Chorley has been told it can continue operating after it finally secured planning permission - more than five years after it opened.
The owner of Muddy Trails, on Holker Lane in Ulnes Walton, told a meeting of Chorley Council’s planning committee she had obtained a licence for the facility - and believed "hand on heart” that she did not need any further approval.
Sarah Clarke said she could “only apologise", adding: “This is my business, my livelihood and my home.”
The venture - which can cater for 20 dogs at a time - was described in a report by council planning officers as a “niche doggy daycare facility”, whose canine clientele are looked after in a “sensory” outdoor environment, rather than being kept inside all day. The business’s Facebook page shows a picture of some of the pooches at a birthday party for one of their number.
Retrospective applications for the change of use of what was previously farmland and the construction of a new building on the site were both refused by Chorley Council in March 2023. The authority concluded they amounted to “inappropriate” development within the greenbelt and said noise from the operation would have an unacceptable impact on nearby residents.
The business appealed against the decision, but a planning inspector upheld the authority’s refusal - although only on greenbelt grounds, not over noise concerns. Muddy Trails was then given 12 months to find alternative premises, but has now successfully persuaded planning committee members to give it the permission needed to stay put.
A revised application excluded the new building, which will now have to be dismantled, but did propose the extension of four existing structures on the site.
In recommending the fresh blueprint be approved, town hall planning officers acknowledged that while the proposal was “finely balanced”, it now protected the “openness” of the greenbelt. The building extensions will increase each of them in size by less than half.
The council’s environmental health officer remains concerned the potential noise from the dogs may be “significant or unreasonable”, but the planning inspector’s opposing conclusion on that matter is now a material consideration that the local authority had to factor into its decision. Although no noise complaints have been received for almost two years, the committee was told that might have been because locals were expecting the business to have to relocate following the inspector’s ruling.
One public objection was lodged to the new proposal, which not only raised the issue of noise, but parking. The meeting heard,a six-space car park is available for owners dropping off and collecting their dogs, the times of which are staggered.
Committee member Cllr Craige Southern said the “moral of the story” was to “always seek advice” over whether planning permission was needed, while Cllr Alex Hilton said the initial failure to apply for approval had clearly been “an oversight”.
Fellow member Cllr Katie Wilkie added: “The [applicant] has obviously learned her lesson and I don't think we should be detrimental to her business needs.”
Ms. Clarke said after the initial refusal of retrospective permission, she had been “misadvised” about ploughing on in pursuit of the same plans, before it was later recommended to her that she should amend them.