Agenda item

The Area Lead South presented the application on behalf of a colleague, as detailed in the report in the agenda.  With the aid of a power point presentation he showed details of the site and photographs of nearby properties and the Nissan hut that would be removed should the application be approved.

The Officer provided members with an update from Marcus Fysh MP who had been contacted by concerned residents who were worried about an increase in noise due to barking dogs housed in the kennels; Mr Fysh felt that a noise attenuation scheme was required before any decision was made on the application.

The Area Lead South confirmed that all matters had been addressed within the report and that a noise mitigation scheme was required by a condition.  He confirmed that the recommendation was to approve the application.

Mrs Boyd, a member of the Parish Council and a near neighbour to the application site but not mentioned in the report, objected to the application as she was concerned about the noise that would emanate from barking dogs, and she felt that it would destroy the current tranquillity of her home.

Mr T Jones spoke on behalf of Mrs Boyd in objection to the application.  He explained that at one time Mrs Boyd could often hear the sound from the radio of the previous occupiers of the application site; therefore it stood to reason that she would easily hear the noise from barking dogs.  If approved, several people living around the site would lose peaceful enjoyment of their homes due to the unpredictable noise of barking dogs.

Mrs J Williams, Mr H Wilkinson and Mrs L Matraves all spoke in opposition to the application and felt that the views of the Parish Council and the community should be taken on board, the area was currently peaceful and the noise of barking dogs would destroy that.

Mr Dance the agent addressed the committee and urged members to approve the application particularly as the Environmental Protection Officer could not substantiate an objection to the application and he had recommended a condition to develop an acoustic attenuation scheme.  The way the kennels were designed the dogs would. be unable to see each other and they would not be exercised together thereby limiting the amount of noise.

Ward Member Cllr Tony Capozzoli spoke in objection to the application; he was concerned that no mention had been made within the officer’s report regarding the diversification from a farm to dog boarding kennels. He also noted the application site was within the parish of Mudford and not Limington as described in the report.  He felt the application should be refused as the tranquillity of the area would be spoilt.

During the opportunity to correct a mis-statement Mr Williams pointed out that it would be preferable if the dogs (maximum of 22) were exercised together, as the time spent exercising them would be carried out over a shorter period.

During discussion several issues were raised, some of which included the following:

·         No mention had been made of drainage and waste disposal;

·         More information was required regarding the noise attenuation scheme before any decision was made;

·         There were several dog kennels within Area East in the middle of housing and no complaints had ever been received, that could be achieved by good management;

·         Could not understand why there was no farm diversification and considered that it would be better to have beef and sheep farming on the site in question prior to starting dog boarding kennels;

·         If the applicant abided by the conditions imposed and was well managed there should be no adverse problems for the neighbours;

·         In general the only time that 2 dogs would share a kennel would be if the dogs came from the same home;

·         Suggested a site visit to take account of the topography of the area;

·         There had been similar applications refused by AEC because there had been no viable business plan.

A proposal was made and seconded to refuse the application.

Meanwhile in response to several queries the Area Lead East replied that:

·      The applicable kennel license would deal with dog waste;

·      Drainage would be part of the conditions of any approval;

·      In reality there had been very few complaints from registered kennels within South Somerset,

·      There would be a degree of acoustic screening due to the actual design and position of the proposed kennels;

·      Noise attenuation would form part of the  management of the business;

·      Because of the different pitches of barking dogs it would be difficult to prescribe a decibel limit;

·      The applicant did not currently hold an Agricultural Holding number but apparently it was their intention to apply for one;

·      As the property was not yet occupied by the applicant there was not currently a breach to any planning tie, if once the applicant moved in and if they were found to be in breach, that issue would be dealt with at the relevant time.

The Legal Services Manager advised the committee that they should carefully consider the reasons used should they wish to refuse the application: a modern agricultural occupancy condition would permit an element of income from other sources, and there was nothing to suggest that agricultural operations couldn’t be undertaken alongside the kennel business.  If members were minded to refuse the application they were advised to focus more on the noise impact rather than the agricultural diversification.  No enforcement action could take place until the property was occupied and any possible breach of the agricultural tie was put to the test, and in any event enforcement issues weren’t relevant to this application.

During further discussion it was suggested that the application should be deferred in order to organise a site visit together with an acoustic measurement. Another Councillor felt that it would be too difficult to measure dogs barking.

In order to defer the application and have a site visit Cllr Capozzoli was asked if he wanted to withdraw his proposal to refuse the application, but he did not wish to rescind his proposal.

On being put to the vote the proposal to refuse the application was carried by 6 votes in favour; 1 against and 3 abstentions, as it had not been demonstrated that the proposed kennels could operate without detriment to the amenities of local residents by reason of noise and disturbance.

RESOLVED: that Planning Application 15/03137/FUL be refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation for the following reason:

It has not been demonstrated that the proposed kennels could operate without detriment to the amenities of local residents by reason of noise and disturbance. As such the proposal is contrary to policies EQ2 and EQ7 of the South Somerset local Plan 2006-2028.

(Voting: 6 in favour: 1 against: 3 abstentions)