Agenda item

Application for change of use to a dog day care centre (retrospective).

Late items:

Consultations:-

A further representation has been received from a previously registered objector raising the following additional comments:-

1)    Having a maximum of 30 dogs generates a lot of noise and this is carried on the wind.

2)    There is a minimum of 4 properties that are within the outlined 250 metre circle on the plan.

3)    Noise and pollution will infringe on existing properties.

4)    Constant barking or whining of a dog will be very disturbing or annoying.

5)    In law, a barking dog can be a 'statutory noise nuisance' under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 so how can this be adhered to when there is a possibility of 30 dogs being at the property at any one time. It is going to be all day everyday so surely this would constitute nuisance.

Councillor Cope has provided the following statement to be considered by member of the Planning Committee:-

"I have been approached by both parties in respect of this application. I can see the relevance and importance of both arguments and appreciate the need to be equitable in my approach for the parties, considering that in general, the issue and persons are encompassed within Trinity ward. I would ask that members give due consideration to the noise issues articulated by neighbours and the environmental health reporting that attaches to matters. The dog centre appears to be a worthwhile and local enterprise that requires a suitable location and that needs a sensitive and sustainable approach.

I consider that what is required therefore is one of balance between the ability of the applicant to conduct the operation without compromising the environment of the immediate neighbours. In this respect policy DM10 applies generally, but I would ask members to consider the rights to "quiet enjoyment" of their homes.

It is difficult to satisfy the differing approaches in both parties contentions but it is arguable that the amount of dogs envisaged in the application, is it possible and reasonable that the barking liable, can be adequately controlled and mitigated by conditions applied? If not I would suggest that a "minded to refuse" be considered in order to further develop the position equitably."

Leicestershire County Council (Highways), have no objections to the proposed development.

Appraisal:-

Impact upon residential amenity

The additional comments have not raised any additional material planning considerations, which have not been addressed within the committee report. Matters concerning the impact upon residential amenity have been fully considered. The site has been subject site visits being carried out on 3 separate occasions for a 30 minute period to monitor the noise and no significant barking has been witnessed.

Impact upon Highway Safety

Leicestershire County Council (Highways) have considered the application, and given the proposal is in excess of 300 metres from the adopted highway and the proposal is unlikely to result in an increased number of trips in comparison to the existing permitted use, it could not be demonstrated that the proposal if permitted would result in severe harm to the public highway in accordance with paragraph 109 of the NPPF

Application for change of use to a dog day care centre (retrospective).

It was moved by Councillor Richards, seconded by Councillor Smith and

RESOLVED –

(i)            Permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the officer’s report’

(ii)           The Interim Head of Planning be granted delegated powers to determine the final detail of planning conditions.