Agenda item

Cavendish Lodge Back Lane Cavendish Bridge Shardlow Derby DE72 2HL

Having declared an interest in the item Councillor R Canny left the committee to speak as Ward Member.

The Planning Officer presented the report to Members

Councillor Bernadette O’Dowd, on behalf of Castle Donington Parish Council addressed the committee highlighting that the owners had been breeding dogs on the site since May 2019 and that there was a constant barking noise throughout the day for two months until residents submitted complaints. She noted that the owners had advised of the work that had been carried out to mitigate the noise, but it was believed that no breeding had taken place for a while and once it started again the noise would return. She raised concerns over the site being located in a high risk area for flooding and outlined recent flooding events. She urged the committee to refuse the application.

A statement was read out on behalf of Mr Mark Baskcomb, objector, highlighting the potential noise levels from the site, which formal complaints had been made about in the past and that the noise would start from 6.30am and continue through to 10pm, seven days a week. He also raised concerns over the welfare of the dogs, as the site was situated in an area prone to high flood level risk, advising that the applicant’s dwelling was on stilts but the kennels would be on ground level. He noted that the documents of support were from people outside of the community rather than those who would be impacted by the noise.

Mr Philip Rowland, agent, addressed the committee highlighting that the application sought to re-use a number of existing buildings, and the business would be appropriately located in the countryside, which would be deemed acceptable in accordance with the NPPF and Local Plan Policy S3. It was noted that there had not been any complaints in relation to noise since the applicant had fully sound insulated the buildings and, installed CCTV and a noise monitoring system. He informed Members that the business would be classed as a less vulnerable use in terms of the Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification and that the applicant had signed up to the Environmental Agency’s Flood Warnings service to provide information for the removal of the dogs to a safe location. He added that the applicant had worked with officers throughout the application process and that the proposed development complied with all relevant planning policies and posed no highway safety issues.

Councillor Rachel Canny, Ward Member, addressed the committee highlighting that on a previous occasion when the site had flooded, twelve dogs had to be relocated to the owner’s dwelling and that the owner had advised that an area outside the flood area would be raised to mitigate the issue in the future. She noted the previous noise complaints, that there was no sound insulation in the dog runs and that the fence adjoining the children’s play area had been re-enforced, however not all the perimeter works had been finished and asked that it be completed before permission was given, along with consideration to the height. She expressed concerns over the possible odour from the dog waste that would be kept on site, the different breeds of dogs that would be bordered there and the type of monitoring that would be put in place to deal with future noise issues.

Councillor R Canny then left the meeting and took no part in the consideration of the item and the voting thereon.

In determining the application, members noted the additional conditions that were included in the update sheet. Concerns were expressed over the numbers and breed of dogs that would be on site at any one time, and that the boundary treatment should be completed and appropriate insulation be fitted in the buildings before any permission be given. It was requested that the concerns be conditioned. Consideration was also given to waste disposal, drainage and that a licence would also be required from a Vet, before any breeding could take place, which would also consider the number of dogs allowed on the site.

Members felt that, if they were minded to permit the application, the permission given should be robust and requested that full consideration be given to all of the conditions that would be secured on the permission and asked that the Chairman of the Committee and Ward Member be consulted on the conditions before the permission was granted.

A motion to permit the application in accordance with the officer recommendation and that the approval of conditions and wording be delegated to the Head of Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the Ward Member was moved by Councillor J Legrys and seconded by Councillor D Harrison.

The Chairman put the motion to the vote. A recorded vote being required, the voting was as detailed below.

RESOLVED THAT:

The application be permitted in accordance with the officer recommendation and that the approval of conditions and wording be delegated to the Head of Planning and Infrastructure in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee and the Ward Member.

Councillor R Canny returned to the meeting.

As both the Chairman and Deputy Chairman had declared interests in the next item the Chairman sought nominations to elect a Chairman for the consideration of item A2.

It was moved by Councillor D Harrison, seconded by Councillor J Legrys and

By affirmation of the meeting it was

RESOLVED THAT:

Councillor D Harrison take the chair for the reminder of the meeting.