Agenda item

Planning Application 18/03322/FUL - Homelea, Broadmead Road, Beercrocombe

Minutes:

Proposal: The addition of a window to end elevation and the change of use of existing stables to house dogs (Retrospective).

 

The Specialist (Development Management) presented the application as detailed in the agenda. He updated members that two further letters of support had recently been received and would be viewable on the website shortly. A further letter had also been received from the applicant but it had not raised anything new to update. He explained that the addition of a single window to the approved scheme for the stable building was not a concern in planning terms and was considered acceptable. The key considerations raised locally about the boarding of dogs were highlighted, and he explained that the associated residential amenity issues could be addressed through Environmental Health legislation. Reference was also made to other matters raised in representations, and he clarified that any planning permission would be for the red line application area only.

 

A representative from the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application, his comments included:

·         The parish council opposed the proposal.

·         The kennels are in a residential area. The building is not ancillary to the dwelling and the dogs are not the owners pets.

·         Concern about the term ‘adequate management’ – how do you stop a dog barking, especially if it’s distressed.

·         The Greyhound Trust is a rescue charity with national centres, the nearest of which is only 16 miles away. Owners do the rehoming as a hobby but it should not outweigh residential amenity.

 

One supporter and the applicant addressed members in support of the application, their comments included:

·         The kennel backs on to the property and the dogs are rarely heard.

·         If a complaint was made, would look to rectify the situation straight away.

·         An anti-bark device is installed in the kennel and a monitoring system is connected to the house.

·         The Trust rehoming centre 16 miles away is in Devon and serves the Devon area. The application site is in Somerset and covers the Somerset and Dorset areas.

 

Ward member, Councillor Sue Steele, noted she had taken time to look carefully into this application including the work of the Greyhound Trust. It was acknowledged all dogs could bark, and it was difficult to stop a dog barking. She felt when looking at the location and proximity of residential dwellings, whether it would have been considered to have a rehoming centre at the site. She stressed she had nothing against the applicant but felt this was not the right location.

 

During a short discussion most members expressed their support for the application. Comments included:

·         Closest neighbours haven’t raised objections.

·         What’s the turnover time for the dogs?

·         Must limit to no more than five dogs.

·         Have there been any complaints?

·         Don’t see this as a huge nuisance, someone could have five dogs in a house as pets. Perhaps the applicant could put some additional insulation in the stable block to minimise any noise.

 

At the request of the Chairman, the applicant clarified that on average they rehomed about 35 dogs or year but it could be up to one a week.

 

The Specialist (Compliance and Enforcement) clarified some of the points raised during discussion, and explained what action could be taken if a complaint and evidence was received.

 

The Specialist (Development Management) clarified that paperwork could be supplied, if necessary, to indicate the number of dogs owned and rehomed by the charity at this site, as opposed to any dogs that may be the owners pets..

 

There being no further discussion it was proposed to approve the application, as per the officer recommendation, and on being put to the vote was carried 6 in favour, 1 against with 1 abstention.

 

RESOLVED:

That planning application 18/03322/FUL be APPROVED, as per the officer recommendation, subject to the following:

 

Justification:

 

01.    The proposed insertion of a window in the stable building and change of use to allow for the housing of dogs is not considered to result in demonstrable harm to landscape character, visual amenity, residential amenity, or highways safety. The proposal is considered to accord with policies SD1, EQ2, TA5, and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.

 

Subject to the following conditions:

 

01.    Notwithstanding the time limits given to implement planning permission as prescribed by Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), this permission (being granted under section 73A of the Act in respect of development already carried out) shall have effect from 19/11/2018.

        

         Reason: To comply with Section 73A of the Act.

 

02.    The change of use hereby permitted shall be strictly contained to the application site - i.e. the area outlined in red on the Site Location Plan.

           

         Reason: To allow the use to be controlled in the interests of residential amenity and highways safety, in accordance with policies EQ2, TA5, and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.

 

03.    There shall be no more than five dogs associated with the dog rehoming charity housed within the application site at any one time. This excludes dogs that are owned by the occupants of the dwelling, Homelea.

        

         Reason: To allow the intensity of the use to be controlled in the interests of residential amenity and highways safety, in accordance with policies EQ2, TA5, and TA6 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) and the provisions of the NPPF.

 

Informatives:

 

01.    The granting of this planning permission does not in any way indemnify against statutory nuisance action being taken should substantiated complaints within the remit of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 be received. For further information please contact the Environmental Health section.

 

(Voting: 6 in favour, 1 against, 1 abstention)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: