Aberdeenshire woman's dog park plans refused as neighbours raise fears over barking

Plans for a dog park near Laurencekirk have been refused over fears barking dogs would disturb neighbours – but the woman behind the proposal has claimed it is a “missed opportunity”.

Gail Whyte was seeking retrospective permission for the new facility at Kilnhill.

She wanted to change a small woodland into the pet park and needed approval for fencing and gates that she previously installed.

Mrs Whyte had also created a car park for customers with access taken from a private road that serves three residential properties – but did so without council consent.

A complaint was submitted to the local authority alleging an unauthorised change of use of the woodland and raised concerns about an impact on the homes.

The application had a mixed response from the public, with 14 letters of support and eight objections sent to Aberdeenshire Council.

Those backing it said it was an “important local facility for dog owners” and the business would contribute to the local economy.

But those against it raised fears on the impact it would have on surrounding properties as well as road safety.

A petition signed by 64 people supporting the application was also received.

But the council’s Environmental Health team objected to the proposal.

They said the proximity of the dog park to the four homes next door could create “intrusive and highly perceptible noise impacts” that couldn’t be controlled.

Meanwhile, council planners recommended the facility be refused on grounds of noise, saying it could “result in a level of uncertainty and potential disturbance that is unacceptable”.

The matter went before the Kincardine and Mearns area committee earlier today for councillors to decide its fate.

Mrs Whyte attended the meeting to fight for her new venture.

She explained that the idea came from the need to diversify her agricultural business and would bring new life to the woodland that was “mangled by Storm Arwen”.

Councillors were told the fenced woodland would provide a “safe, low impact exercise space” for dogs.

Mrs Whyte also said there had been strong community interest and support for the project, while trial sessions had resulted in positive feedback.

Addressing fears about how the site would be used, she revealed that customers would book visits online but only two guests and a maximum of four dogs would be permitted at a time.

She added: “Safe and secure dog parks are essential for dogs and their owners, ensuring physical fitness and mental wellbeing.

“The park will be closely monitored and run in a caring, professional and responsible manner.”

Graham Bruce, who has lived next to the woodland for more than 30 years, also attended the meeting but to speak against the proposal.

He claimed that the dog park would bring “unavoidable” noise and disturbance to both him and his neighbours.

Mr Bruce also told councillors that he was worried an increase in traffic would cause road safety issues and could result in a serious accident.

He said: “This is a fast stretch of road where vehicles frequently travel at excessive speeds.

“In my mind, this is an entirely unsuitable location for a dog park.”

But Mr Bruce explained he wasn’t against facilities like this, but suggested it would be better off placed somewhere more suitable.

Mearns councillor Laurie Carnie went against planners and called for the application to be approved.

While she acknowledged the concerns of residents, she believed there was fencing and hedging in place to buffer any potential noise.

She added: “It’s a really positive proposal that would provide a safe and closed space for dog exercise, promote responsible ownership, support health and wellbeing and it’s a facility that the community are screaming out for.”

However, Stonehaven councillor Sarah Dickinson agreed with planners and believed the application should be rejected.

She explained: “We can’t condition what will happen over the lifetime of that change of use and the nature of dog barking.

“I love dogs, I have a dog. She doesn’t particularly bark at all but that’s not the point is it? It’s not the dogs that we know.

“It’s what we can or cannot absolutely foresee, and we cannot absolutely foresee what would happen here.”

Following a vote, three members were in support and nine were against meaning the application for the dog park was refused.

Speaking after the meeting, Mrs Whyte said she was “very disappointed” at the outcome.

She added: “It fails to reflect the strong local support for a safe, secure, well-managed area in a natural setting for dogs and their owners.

“This is a missed opportunity which would have answered a clear need in the area.”

Mrs Whyte also revealed that she will now be considering her next steps.