Dog breeder wins appeal over variation to licence

In the case of Rebecca Latter v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council [2025] UKFTT 973 (GRC), the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) considered an appeal by a licensed dog breeder against a variation to her breeding licence. The variation, imposed by Barnsley Council, prohibited the keeping of entire male dogs at her premises following two incidents of accidental mating involving the same female dog within an 18-month period.

Background and circumstances of the appeal

Rebecca Latter operated a licensed dog breeding establishment in Barnsley. On 20 September 2024, Barnsley Council varied her licence to prohibit the keeping of entire male dogs at her premises. This decision was prompted by two back-to-back pregnancies involving the same breeding female, which breached the statutory requirement that a female dog should not have more than one litter within a 12-month period. The council argued that the restriction was necessary to protect animal welfare and relied on veterinary advice in support of its decision.

Ms Latter appealed the variation, arguing that the restriction was disproportionate and unreasonable. She maintained that apart from the two incidents, her record as a breeder was exemplary, with positive inspection reports and effective separation of male and female dogs. She also claimed that she had not received adequate guidance or support from the council prior to the licence variation.

The council contended that although the physical structure of Ms Latter’s premises could allow for proper segregation of dogs, the issue lay in the day-to-day management, which had led to the accidental matings. They viewed the restriction as a measured response, less severe than refusing the licence or imposing a formal penalty, and said it was based on veterinary advice.

Tribunal’s analysis and decision

Tribunal Judge Dwyer acknowledged that the council had followed the correct process and had the legal authority to impose licence conditions. The central issue was whether the restriction was proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The tribunal examined the veterinary advice that had informed the council’s decision. The vet had advised that Ms Latter should submit a plan outlining how she intended to prevent further welfare breaches, rather than recommending an outright ban on entire male dogs.

Judge Dwyer found that the council’s interpretation of the veterinary advice was not fully supported by the evidence. He noted that the appellant had demonstrated a willingness to improve and had a strong compliance history aside from the two incidents. The tribunal also considered that the restriction would have a significant impact on Ms Latter’s ability to operate her business and that less intrusive measures could have been explored.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and found that the licence should be renewed without the restrictions imposed by the council.