Brace v Torridge District Council: tribunal dismisses dog breeding licence appeal over welfare standards

The First-tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by Sharon Elisabeth Brace against Torridge District Council's refusal to grant a dog breeding licence under the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. The case highlights the evidential burden on applicants to demonstrate compliance with minimum welfare standards.

Ms Brace operated a breeding facility in Beaworthy, Devon, housing 18 breeding dogs and 22 non-breeding dogs. Following an unannounced inspection in September 2024, the Council conducted a formal inspection in December 2024 with multiple officers and veterinarians. A follow-up visit occurred in January 2025, before the licence refusal was issued on 31 March 2025.

The Council's refusal identified breaches of numerous general conditions in Schedule 2 and specific conditions in Schedule 6 of the 2018 Regulations, including failures relating to competence in recognising abnormal behaviour, toileting opportunities, safe transport, water access, environmental enrichment, socialisation, preventative healthcare, and adequate space.

Judge Buckley acknowledged certain improvements had been made, including the installation of water bowls in individual pens, purchase of a harness for transport, and completion of vaccinations. The tribunal was satisfied that some conditions would be met going forward.

However, critical concerns remained unaddressed. The tribunal found that Ms Brace had not provided sufficient evidence regarding isolation, socialisation, and regular observation of dogs and puppies. Dogs were housed in individual boxes with limited interaction opportunities. During the unannounced September visit, dogs remained confined until 11am despite being observed rushing to toilet when released, suggesting prolonged confinement. At the December inspection, most dogs remained in their boxes throughout a four-hour visit.

Significantly, Council officers observed nervous behaviour in two young dogs and a puppy across multiple visits, raising questions about adequate socialisation and habituation. Whilst Ms Brace produced testimonials regarding previously bred puppies, these likely predated her current kennel system and could not demonstrate compliance under present arrangements.

The tribunal was particularly critical of Ms Brace's approach to the appeal. Rather than producing evidence of compliance with minimum standards, substantial effort was devoted to allegations of document fabrication and procedural impropriety. The Council had offered a re-inspection in May 2025 and suggested specific evidence that could demonstrate compliance, including log sheets, schedules, and checklists detailing when dogs were released, checked, and interacted with. Ms Brace declined the re-inspection and failed to produce any such documentation.

Additional concerns included the continued use of plastic bottles as toys despite Council advice, and failure to implement routine preventative treatment for fleas and ticks, contrary to statutory guidance requiring documented routine treatment for internal and external parasites.

The tribunal emphasised that whilst some miscommunication had occurred and cooperation could improve on both sides, the evidential burden lay with the appellant. Without proper documentation or a re-inspection to verify assertions, the tribunal could not be satisfied that minimum standards would be met.

The judgement encourages Ms Brace to submit a fresh application and engage constructively with the Council to demonstrate compliance with licensing requirements.

Copyright & permissions