Plans to establish a new dog walking area near the Somerset village of Cheddar have been rejected following a decision by the Planning Inspectorate. The proposal, submitted by Sam Jones shortly before Christmas 2025, aimed to create the facility on the eastern edge of Cheddar, situated within the Mendip Hills national landscape, an area previously designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Somerset Council had refused planning permission in mid-March 2026, citing concerns that the development could not be justified in the open countryside and that safe access to the site was not achievable. The Planning Inspectorate upheld this decision, with inspector Alison Fish concluding that the proposed development would “harmfully urbanise” the site and increase risks to pedestrians.
The facility was to be located near the junction of Redcliffe Street, Bradley Cross Lane, and Lippiatt Lane, less than a mile from both the Cheddar village centre and the Owley Woods glamping site. Plans included a new access point south of Redcliffe Street, accompanied by a small car park with four spaces and a turning area.
READ MORE: A303 Traffic Update: Road Closure Following Hay-Laden Lorry Fire
READ MORE: A371 Road Closed Indefinitely Due to Large Grass Fire in Weston-Super-Mare
The facility was intended to operate 12 hours a day throughout the week, with customers required to pre-book 50-minute slots followed by 10-minute intervals to allow for changeover. Inspector Fish visited the site on 13 July and published her final report shortly before the Somerset Council planning committee meeting in Bridgwater on 11 August.
While acknowledging the potential benefits of the facility, particularly for anxious dogs or those with behavioural issues that cannot safely exercise on public paths, Ms Fish noted that such land for off-lead dog exercise is unlikely to be found within Cheddar’s built-up limits. However, she expressed concerns about the proposed access, highlighting insufficient visibility for pedestrians and vehicles which could create road safety hazards.
The inspector observed that the planned widening and surfacing of the existing access to facilitate parking and the provision of a visibility splay might not meet safety standards. She questioned the traffic estimate provided by the appellant, arguing that the figure of two vehicle movements per hour was conservative, and pointed out that groups could arrive in multiple vehicles. Furthermore, the traffic survey, conducted between 3pm and 4pm on a single day, was deemed inadequate to address safety concerns fully.
Regarding environmental impact, Ms Fish identified that the removal of trees and construction of the hard-standing car park would noticeably alter the rural character of the area. She also criticised the proposed planting of a new native hedgerow adjacent to fencing within the middle of a field, stating it would appear artificial and unnaturally subdivide the land. Although the physical changes were relatively modest, Ms Fish concluded that collectively they would unacceptablely urbanise the countryside site.