![FT/WA/2025/0003 - [2025] UKFTT 01315 (GRC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_kmf8vDg.png){kind=logo}
FT/WA/2025/0003 - [2025] UKFTT 01315 (GRC)
Fecha: 07-Oct-2025
Introduction
Introduction
This is an appeal under regulation 24 of the Animal Welfare (Licencing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 (the 2018 Regulations) against a decision made by the Torridge District Council (the Council) and sent to the appellant on 31 March 2025, to refuse to grant the appellant an animal activity licence for dog breeding on the grounds that the appellant had not met the minimum standards to be issued a licence.
The appellant had submitted some documents to the tribunal that had not been included in the bundle and which I had therefore not read before the hearing. As this information was potentially relevant, I gave both parties the opportunity to make written submissions following the hearing. I took those submissions into account when determining the appeal.
Factual background to the appeals
The appellant lives with her husband at a property in Beaworthy, Devon. At that property reside 18 breeding dogs and 22 non-breeding dogs.
On 5 September 2024 the Council attended the appellant’s property to investigate reports of unlicenced dog breeding. The appellant subsequently applied for a licence on 18 September 2024.
The Council inspected the property on 18 December 2024. The following people took part in the inspection:
Mandi Farinacci – Council’s Neighbourhood Officer and Animal Licencing Officer
Gareth Cross – Veterinarian
Freya Brooks – Veterinarian
Grant McGill – Planning Enforcement Office
Ian McIver – Community Safety and Public Health Officer
Ms Farinacci prepared a report which was considered by Christopher Parkhouse, the Lead Licencing Officer.
Mandi Farinacci made a further visit on 21 January 2025.
The Council refused to grant the licence and a notice of refusal was sent to the appellant on 31 March 2025.
Legal Framework
Under paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 of the 2018 Regulations, either or both of the following activities are ‘licensable activities’:
breeding three or more litters of puppies in any 12-month period, unless the person carrying on the activity provides documentary evidence that none of them have been sold.
breeding dogs and advertising a business of selling dogs.
The relevant parts of the 2018 Regulations provide:
Conditions of grant or renewal of a licence
Regulation 4.—(1) This regulation applies where—
a local authority has received from an operator an application in writing for the grant or renewal of a licence to carry on a licensable activity on premises in the local authority's area, and
the application gives such information as the local authority has required.
The local authority must—
appoint one or more suitably qualified inspectors to inspect any premises on which the licensable activity or any part of it is being or is to be carried on, and
following that inspection, grant a licence to the operator, or renew the operator's licence, in accordance with the application if it is satisfied that—
the licence conditions will be met,
any appropriate fee has been paid in accordance with regulation 13, and
the grant or renewal is appropriate having taken into account the report submitted to it in accordance with regulation 10.
…
On receipt of an application in writing for the grant of a licence in respect of the activity described in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1, if no inspector appointed under paragraph (2)(a) is a veterinarian, the local authority must appoint a veterinarian to inspect the premises with the inspector appointed under that paragraph.
In considering whether the licence conditions will be met, a local authority must take account of the applicant’s conduct as the operator of the licensable activity to which the application for the grant or renewal relates, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be the operator of that activity and any other relevant circumstances.
…
10 Inspector’s report
Where a local authority arranges an inspection pursuant to regulation 4(2)(a), it must arrange for the submission to it of a report by the inspector.
The inspector’s report must –
Contain information about the operator, any relevant premises, any relevant records, the condition of any animals and any other relevant matter, and
State whether or not the inspector considers that the licence conditions will be met.
A local authority must have regard in the carrying out of its functions under these Regulations to such guidance as may be issued by the Secretary of State.
The “licence conditions” are defined as both the general conditions which are contained in Schedule 2 and the relevant specific conditions which, in the case of licences for breeding dogs are contained in Schedule 6.
The relevant guidance is ‘Dog breeding licensing: statutory guidance for local authorities (updated 1 October 2023)’ (the Guidance).
The Guidance states that:
It is expected that all businesses will meet and maintain minimum standards….
To grant a new animals activities licence for breeding dogs, you must check that businesses meet all of the minimum standards in this guidance.
Notice of refusal
The notice of refusal stated that the appellant had not met the required minimum standards to be issued a dog breeding licence and attached a schedule providing details of the minimum standards that the appellant had not met and the reasons for the refusal of the licence.
The schedule to the decision specified that the following standards in the general conditions set out in Schedule 2 of the 2018 Regulations were not met:
4(2) The licence holder or a designated manager and any staff employed to care for the animals must have competence to identify the normal behaviour of the species for which they are caring and to recognise signs of, and take appropriate measures to mitigate or prevent, pain, suffering, injury, disease or abnormal behaviour.
5(4) Where appropriate for the species, a toileting area and opportunities for toileting must be provided.
5(6) The animals must be transported and handled in a manner (including for example, in relation to housing, temperature, ventilation and frequency) that protects them from pain, suffering, injury and disease.
5(8) All resources must be provided in a way (for example as regards frequency, location and access points) that minimises competitive behaviour or the dominance of individual animals.
5(9) The animals must not be left unattended in any situation or for any period likely to cause them distress.
6(4) Feed and drinking receptacles must be capable of being cleaned and disinfected, or disposable.
6(5) Constant access to fresh, clean drinking water must be provided in a suitable receptacle for the species that requires it.
7(1) Active and effective environmental enrichment must be provided to the animals in inside and outside environments.
7(2) For species whose welfare depends partly on exercise, opportunities to exercise which benefit the animals' physical and mental health must be provided, unless advice from a vet suggests otherwise.
7(3) The animals' behaviour and any changes of behaviour must be monitored. Advice must be sought, as appropriate and without delay, from a vet or, in the case of fish, any person competent to give such advice if adverse or unusual behaviour is detected.
7(5) All immature animals must be given suitable and adequate opportunities to—
learn how to interact with people, their own species and other animals where such interaction benefits their welfare, and
become habituated to noises, objects and activities in their environment.
8(2) The animals must be kept separately or in suitable compatible social groups appropriate to the species and individual animals and no animals from a social species may be isolated or separated from others of their species for any longer than is necessary.
8(3) The animals must have at least daily opportunities to interact with people where such interaction benefits their welfare.
9(4) All reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent and control the spread among animals and people of infectious diseases and parasites.
9(7) Where necessary, animals must receive preventative treatment by an appropriately competent person.
The schedule to the decision also included the following specific conditions from Schedule 6:
2(2) Each dog must be provided with sufficient space…
4(1) The licence holder must implement and be able to demonstrate the use of a documented socialisation and habituation programme for the puppies.
4(5) Any equipment that a dog is likely to be in contact with and any toy provided must not pose a risk of pain, suffering, disease or distress to the dog and must be correctly used.
6(6) The health, safety and welfare of each dog must be checked at the start and end of every day and at least every 4 hours during the daytime.
6(12) A preventative healthcare plan agreed with the veterinarian with whom the licence holder has registered… must be implemented.
Notice of appeal
The grounds of appeal are:
Ground 1: Condition 4(2) – competence of licence holder
The appellant argues that:
the care of a male peacock is not relevant because it is not covered by the licence.
the factual matrix relied on by the Council is wrong.
Ground 2: Condition 5(4) – opportunities for toileting
The appellant argues that the Council has wrongly assessed the facts, failed to properly apply the guidance and taken into account irrelevant considerations. The appellant says that the commentary/alleged conduct in the decision focusses on exercise/enrichment not toileting. She argues that the condition is met. The appellant notes:
Although there is no access run, all kennels are internally connected through ‘pop holes’ allowing free movement.
The kennel walls are 4 feet high and could safely be jumped over if toileting, exercise or companionship are required.
There is access to a secure outside area for toileting and the animals can regularly leave the kennel for toileting.
Ground 3: Condition 5(6) – transporting/handling safely
The appellant asserts that the Council places undue weight on the fact that there is no space for a crate, because other suitable restraints were available.
The appellant asserts that the requirement is met. She says that an adult dog harness is fitted for the Border Collies and the puppies have always been transported safely in suitable cages that fit the vehicle.
Ground 4: Condition 5(8) – minimising competitive behaviour/dominance
The appellant submits that:
Water is provided in a way that minimizes unsuitable interacting with drinking water and ensures constant access to clean water.
The appellant disputes that there was a need to have water bowls within each stall, but these were, in any event, provided a couple of weeks after the visit on 21 January 2025 and notified to the Council before the refusal decision.
Although one bucket may have been waiting to be refilled on the visit on 21 January 2025, the dogs had access to other water stations.
The refusal decision does not state that the water was provided in a way that increased competitive behaviour and the criticisms are of little relevance to condition 5(8).
Ground 5: Condition 5(9) – leaving animals unattended
The appellant submits that the Council’s rationale is flawed and incoherent. She argues that the Council’s comments and reasons in relation to condition 5(9) are not relevant to whether the dogs are left unattended in any situation or for any period likely to cause them distress but relate to access to toileting and exercise.
Ground 6: Condition 6(4) – feed and drinking receptacles
The appellant submits that it is unclear on what basis the Council submits that condition 6(4) is not met because she uses a natural antibacterial cleaner and tea towel to clean the bowls.
Ground 7: Condition 6(5) – access to water
The appellant asserts that this condition is met because fresh drinking water is provided daily and changed as often as necessary in clean receptacles and all dogs have access to water. She relies on the matters set out under Ground 4.
Ground 8: Condition 7(1) and part B 4(5) – enrichment and equipment
The appellant asserts that the factual summary in the reasons for the refusal decision falls into error and that the focus should be on the breeding dogs. She sets out a list of matters that she says ensure an active and effective environmental enrichment.
Ground 9: Conditions 7(2), 8(3), part B 4(1) and 7(5) – socialisation/interaction/exercise
The appellant raised the following points:
The appellant took advice from her vet who raised no concerns with the whelping arrangements and the appellant puts a divider in the puppy pen as necessary. It is averred that this satisfies paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 of the 2018 Regulations.
The requirements were met in relation to whelping which is not required to be done inside a house. The appellant questions the legal basis on which the Council suggests that conditions 7(2), 8(3), Part B 4(1) and 7(5) are met.
There is no rational basis for the Council’s assertion that the puppies or border collies are not provided with opportunities to exercise. The Council’s reasoning is based on an assumption that they are ‘likely in solitary confinement for hours a day’.
The appellant provides details of her case on the steps taken in relation to socialisation, interaction and exercise. She asserts that the averment that the dogs are born and raised without socialisation is unsupported by any evidential basis.