Plans to turn land into a dog exercise field and create car parking on site have been refused by the council.

The owners of Smithson Farm, in Woodend Road, Reedley, Brierfield, applied to the council in May to turn some agricultural land into a dog exercise field, and create a hard standing area for car parking.

A planning statement lodged with Pendle Council read: “The site comprises a field which is part of the large holding of Smithson Farm, which has an established camping and caravan site and mining museum, the land holding as a whole being about 12 acres.

“The field lies to the north of Smithson Farm and runs alongside the M65.

“Access to the field is gained from an existing gate from Wood End Road at a point where there is an existing access to Smithson Farm.

"Ravello House is at the rear of Smithson Farm and this has a separate access further to the east closer to the M65.

“To the west of this site and fronting onto Wood End Road is a camping site and Mining Museum, all in the ownership of the applicant.

“The proposed use of dog exercising is already taking place at the site. The dog exercise use takes place for one hour each morning.

"The dog exercise operators collect the dogs from people’s homes and bring them to site in a van.

“After the exercise activities, the dogs are taken away in the van and returned to the owners.

“The use is therefore a collection service involving only one vehicle arriving at the site, as opposed to some other exercise areas where owners can book a session and bring their own dogs in their own vehicles.

“Parking for the dog exercise van is from an existing field gate access in a small, enclosed area off Wood End Road and foot access is gained from there to the field exercise area.”

Following consultation, Pendle Council refused the application with a report stating: “The application site is within green belt and the proposed development would adversely affect the openness of the green belt and would thus be inappropriate development.

“There are no very special circumstances to justify approving this inappropriate development.

“The proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and visual amenity of the area.”

The application was refused on August 1.