Agenda item

Retention and use of existing outbuildings and land for the non-commercial breeding and keeping of dogs

The Committee considered a report of the Planning Officer with regards to the retention and use of existing outbuildings and land for the non-commercial breeding and keeping of dogs at Land East of Home Farm, Sedgefield (for copy see file of minutes).

The South and West Planning Team Leader gave a detailed presentation which included site location plans, aerial photographs and photographs of the site.

Councillor D Brown, Local Member and Member of Sedgefield Town Council, addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.  He referred to the 43 objections that had been raised and confirmed that 27 of them were from people in the local area.

This was a retrospective application that had received a number of complaints over a considerable amount of time, the first complaint had been received in 2019.  At this time he had contacted the Applicant who was also Member of Sedgefield Town Council, who had assured him that everything that was being done was above board and he informed the complainant and considered the matter closed.  He had found out some time later that he had been misinformed and been led to misinform local residents.

Councillor D Brown advised that a site visit would have confirmed that the photographs were not an accurate representation of the premises. 

He confirmed that the most frequent complaints were noise from dogs barking and the generator, the burning of animal waste, drainage from contaminated waste and the suitability of exercise for the animals and cited grounds for refusal relating to the following;

·        NPPF 15

·        CDP Policies 10, 19, 35, 39

·        Sedgefield Local Plan G 1b, E1

In response to a question from Councillor L Brown, the Planning Team Leader confirmed that the nearest residential property was 90m from the premises and the road in between was an embankment.  In addition he responded to confirm that the generator was used for the provision of electric on site.

Councillor Adam referred to the report from the Environmental Health Officer which advised that the development was unlikely to cause a statutory nuisance, which was contradictory to the noise reports.  With regards to the condition to restrict the hours the generator ocould operate to daytime only would affect the welfare of the animals and whether they would become more distressed and more likely to make noise. The Planning Team Leader advised that a noise assessment had been requested by the Environmental Health Officer and in conclusion found the level of noise was below what was expected.  The generator was diesel powered and had been mitigated with a condition to create housing.

Councillor McKeon confirmed that she sympathised with those who had complained about the noise as there was a similar premises in Coxhoe which was some weeks noisier than others and dogs barking was something that could not be controlled regardless of monitoring.  She was disappointed when retrospective applications were put to the Committee as she felt that it removed the ability for residents concerns to be properly considered.

Councillor Atikinson agreed that retrospective planning applications and was also disappointed that the Applicant had mislead a Local Councillor.  He sympathised with residents with regards to the noise and burning of animal waste and was not convinced the premises was suitable for animals.

Councillor Cairns asked for confirmation of the number of occasions the premises had been visited since 2019 and asked whether conditions would be monitored.  The Planning Team Leader advised that the first visit was made by Planning Enforcement and there had been several visits since.  The Applicant had been advised to put forward a planning application and he added that no noise complaints had been put forward until the application had been submitted and the only complaints prior were with regards to the outbuildings.  He advised that when planning officers had visited the site they had observed no issue with dogs barking and similarly neither had environmental health officers.

The Planning Officer advised that he was unable to comment on the condition of the animals, but there were enforceable conditions attached and enforcement action would be taken if further complaints were found to be in breach of them.

The Chair advised that it was difficult to accurately measure noise from animals on one particular day as there could be changes due to the direction of the wind.

Following a motion to refuse the application by Councillor Cairns, seconded by Councillor McKeon, on the grounds of noise, the incorrect disposal of waste and the retrospective nature of the application, the Councillors Solicitor addressed the Committee.  He advised that the retrospective nature of the application was not a legitimate reason for refusal and there were conditions to mitigate waste disposal.  The Planning Officer advised that the Applicant had obtained a contract to have waste stored in a sealed bin to be disposed of.

On the issue of noise, the Solicitor advised that although there was no exact measure for dogs barking, a full report had concluded that it would not have an unacceptable impact on amenity and he advised that it would be difficult to sustain those grounds on appeal.

Councillor Cairns queried the timeline of the conditions and the Planning Team Leader advised that they would begin immediately with one condition having a three month period for installation of an acoustic screen.

In response to Members the Solicitor reiterated that the retrospective nature of the application and the disposal of waste were not legitimate reasons to refuse the application and it would be difficult to defend the decision to refuse the application on the grounds of noise alone, basaed on the mitigation in the conditions attached.

Councillor Stead asked for clarification on where the contaminated water was going to and asked whether a condition for the installation of electricity and mains water could be added.  The Planning Team Leader advised that he was unaware of the washing facilities but with regards to the disposal of contaminated water, the premises was formerly stables and like many there was no mains water connection or foul water drainage.  Water would be led into a soakaway and then into the ground into an area with no flood risk and no nearby watercourse.  Furthermore the ammonia concentrate would be low and hence there was no reported issue of water pollution.

The Planning Team Leader advised that with regards to the conditions of the animals, the RSPCA had investigated and confirmed that there was no requirement for the Applicant to have a licence, when racing dogs for a hobby.  He queried the accusation of neglect as these dogs had to be in good shape to race.  Finally, to insist on mains water and electric was outside of the planning remit.

Councillor Atkinson summed up the reasons for refusal as not being substantial enough to refuse the application.

Following advice from the Solicitor, Councillor McKeon commented that should the application go to appeal and be upheld, the Committee would have missed an opportunity to strengthen conditions.

Councillor L Brown asked the Planning Team Leader whether he believed the application to be contrary to Policy 31 of the CDP and the Planning Team Leader advised that following the assessment of the Environmental Health Officer, there would be no unacceptable noise impact with the conditions attached.

Councillor L Brown moved the recommendation to approve the application as per the Officers report.

Councillor Quinn suggested that this application was a clever use of a site that could otherwise be vacant and although the retrospective nature of the application was not acceptable, it was not a planning consideration and she seconded the recommendation to approve the application.

Councillor Sterling acknowledged that there had been no complaints received with regards to noise prior to the application being submitted and asked for the context of the 46 letters of objection.  The Planning Team Leader advised that there was a mix of complaints about noise and other matters but he highlighted that there was a dual carriageway in between the site and residential properties, that this was not a tranquil area.

The Solicitor clarified the motion to refuse the application and it was lost.

Resolved

That the application be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in the report.