Agenda item

27 School Lane Newbold Coalville Leicestershire

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report to Members.

Mr I Hallam, objector, addressed the meeting on behalf of the residents of Newbold.  He stated that the application was retrospective which showed a disregard for rules and procedures.  He added that there were strong concerns that noise and dog odours would reach unacceptable levels as they had before.  He sought clarification on whether there was the option to change the breed at the premises, and if so, there could be potentially worse issues with noise and odour.  He made reference to the school opposite the premises and expressed concerns that visitors would add to the existing traffic problems.  He highlighted that the stated number of dogs on site excluded puppies, which still produced odour and noise.  He concluded that a business of this sort was not suitable for a quiet residential area.

Mr T Redfern, applicant’s agent, addressed the meeting.  He stated that he was pleased to note that the officer’s recommendation was to permit the application.  He made reference to the previous application and highlighted that the number of breeding dogs had been reduced to 15.  He added that officers had not considered it feasible or necessary to require a restriction on the breed of dog.  He stated that the applicant had a large garden and the sheds had been situated in the best location.  He added that the dogs were virtually noise-free as the site had been sound proofed, the compound was fenced, the site was kept clean and there were no smells outside the fence.  In terms of visitors he explained that multiple visits did not take place at the same time, and therefore there were 5 or 6 purchase visits per month.  He added that the parking on site could accommodate 6 or 7 vehicles at a time and was never full.  He stated that the objections to the application were as a result of a malicious complaint and the applicants had been the subject of racial abuse and vandalism since the previous application.  He added that there were no reasons to refuse the application.  He concluded that control would be reinforced by the breeder’s licence and urged Members to grant the application.

Councillor T Neilson stated that he had spoken in favour of the previous application as no complaints had been received whilst the premises had been in operation.  He moved that the application be permitted in accordance with the officer’s recommendation.  He added that as the District Council had yet to receive any complaints, public nuisance could not be evidenced, and the visit from the RSPCA had given the all clear.

The motion was seconded by Councillor D Everitt.

Councillor M Specht stated that there were no objections regarding noise and smell, and the outbuildings would appear to be permitted development and as such were no different from having a hobby room in your back garden.  He expressed support for the application.

Councillor A Bridges stated that she would not be supporting the application and felt that the comment indicating that there had been no official complaints received was misleading and was the reason that this application had been called in previously.  She added that this was an inconsiderate way of moving into a village and turning a lovely garden into a kennel.  She stated that there had been complaints from neighbours, but these had not been made officially.  She indicated that she would move that the application be refused on the grounds that it did not accord with policies E3 and E4 as it was significantly detrimental to neighbouring properties and subsequent purchasers.

The Chairman advised that a motion had already been moved and seconded, and this would be dealt with firstly.

Councillor R Woodward agreed that information on the number of complaints received could be misleading.  He pointed out that the number of dogs on site would be significantly more than the 15 breeding dogs, irrespective of whether they were in the sheds or in the house.  He felt that the application would be detrimental to the local area and stated that he would not buy a house next to the site.  He concluded that the application did not accord with policy E3 and added that he could not support it.

Councillor J Legrys stated that he felt likewise and had objected to the previous application.  He added that he could not see that a reduction of 5 dogs was any different.  He stated that the dogs may or may not be loud, however they would cause a nuisance.  He expressed a real concern that the buildings were permitted development, which could have been used for hobby purposes, however he felt that the Committee would take a dim view of them being used for business.  He added that there were issues raised by the objector which could not be taken into account, such as property prices.  He expressed concern that the objector referred to complaints which had been made, however the Environmental Health department had no record of them.  He felt that the overlooking onto the site was unacceptable.

Councillor D Everitt stated that he could see no problem with the application, and the officer had recommended that it be permitted.  He added that there had been a lot of assumptions, however the fact was that no complaints had been received, and the facts led him to believe that the officer’s recommendation was correct.

Councillor J G Coxon referred to the report which stated that the applicant had a licence for 7 litters.  He sought clarification on how many dogs would produce 7 litters.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the current number of animals was 12 breeding females and 3 males, and between them they produced 7 litters per year, with an average of 6 pups per litter.

The motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation was then put to the vote and was declared LOST.

Councillor R Woodward moved that the application be refused on the grounds that it did not accord with policies E3 and E4.

The Director of Services advised that policy E4 related to design and that this reason for refusal could not be sustained on appeal.

Councillor R Woodward withdrew policy E4 as a reason for refusal.

The motion was seconded by Councillor A Bridges.

The Chairman then put the motion to the vote and it was declared CARRIED.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be refused on the grounds that it did not accord with policy E3.