Agenda item

Proposed change of use of dwellinghouse to a mixed use as a dwellinghouse and for the keeping and breeding of up to 20 dogs together with the retention of kennel buildings, a storage shed and open and closed runs

27 School Lane Newbold Coalville Leicestershire

Proposed change of use of dwelling house to a mixed use as a dwelling house and for the keeping and breeding of up to 20 dogs together with the retention of kennel buildings, a storage shed and open and closed runs

27 School Lane, Newbold, Coalville, Leicestershire 

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Ms L Hallam, objector, addressed the Committee.  She explained that she was representing the residents of School Lane (Nos. 21, 21a, 23, 25, 35 and 46) and the main concerns were the noise, odour and lighting which were ruining the enjoyment of people’s homes.  She stated that during the previous summer, the odour was forcing the residents of the neighbouring properties inside their homes and on occasion it could be smelt inside as well as out.  She stated that the area was a very quiet residential street and the noise that has resulted from the dogs has had a huge impact.  She suggested that limits on any numbers should include puppies.  She also advised that there were concerns about the use of outbuildings to house puppies.  The flood lighting used on both the front and rear of the property is very bright even with blackout curtains, Ms Hallam suggested that the front lights be angled towards the ground and the rear lights turned off in the late evening.  To conclude, Ms Hallam stated that the business created parking issues due to a large number of people visiting to view the dogs, which caused issues as the property was opposite a school and a bus stop.

 Mrs C Mendel, applicant, addressed the Committee and made the following points:

-   Before moving into the property in January 2013 enquiries were made to the Council regarding whether planning permission was required for the dogs and the kennels.  The original response was that it was not needed but at a later date was told differently.

-   Mrs Mendel assured Members that the operation was as professional as it could be and the kennels were located as far away from neighbours as possible in the large garden.

-   The kennels were well sound proofed and there was fencing and hedging completely surrounding them which contained any extraneous noise and the dogs are placid.

-   The cleaning regime was very thorough with the kennels being cleaned every day with pet grade disinfectant which meant there was no smell outside the fenced compound.  There had been no complaints of any sort to Environmental Health since the applicant moved into the property. Mrs Mendel assured Members that the recommended Officer conditions were acceptable to the operation.  In addition NWLDC has recently renewed the breeding licence.

-   Mrs Mendel assured Members that very little traffic was generated due to the business.  All visitor appointments were arranged to avoid the times when children were taken to and from school and there were no multiple visits.  The front of the property had been gravelled to accommodate up to seven vehicles and visitors are told to park on the parking area and not the road.  She explained that they did have numerous carers, district nurses and doctors that visited the property daily to assist with a sick relative. 

-   Mrs Mendel stated that some of the objections were unreasonable and factually incorrect and as there were no objections from the statutory consultees, urged Members to grant planning permission.

Councillor D J Stevenson explained that he had called the application in as it was made retrospectively and due to the number of complaints from neighbouring residents.  His main concern was the possibility that the kennels could be taken over in the future and larger, noisier dogs kept on the premises.

Councillor A Bridges stated that the street was in a lovely residential area which was close to a school and she felt it was now a commercial site.  She added that she personally would not like to live in a neighbouring property and therefore could not support the application.

Councillor D Everitt stressed that it was important to consider planning matters and the evidence in front of Members.  From the site visit he had ascertained that it was a well run business and he could not see a reason to refuse; he added that he would support the application.

Councillor M Specht stated that he also felt it was a well run business which during the site visit he could see that it was not noisy, had good parking and was clean.  He therefore moved the officer’s recommendation and it was seconded by Councillor T Gillard.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he had concerns in the past regarding businesses being run from residential properties.  He also expressed concerns that people could not enjoy their homes due to noise and odour.  Add these issues to the constant coming and going of visitors and Councillor J Legrys did not believe it was right for the neighbouring residents.

The motion to permit was put to the vote and was LOST.

The Chairman requested a substantive motion from the Committee with relevant planning reasons.  After further discussions, Councillor J Bridges moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it was detrimental to residential amenity due to odour, and noise and disturbance from comings and goings associated with the operation of a business at the site.  It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it was detrimental to residential amenity due to odour and noise and disturbance from comings and goings associated with the operation of a business.