Pet crematorium plan for North End refused
Dozens of objections over bid to move into ‘inappropriate’ building
CONTROVERSIAL plans to build a pet crematorium in North End, which drew dozens of objections, have been refused by Portsmouth City Council.
Cherished Pet Cremations applied in October for permission to move into the vacant unit at 350 London Road which was last used by a roofing firm for storage.
A statement submitted with the application said it said would be a ‘low impact change’ for the area.
‘As a pet loving nation this business is an important service that is required in the heart of all urban communities, and it is common to find such services within all main urban settlements to cope with the inevitable outcome of the general public owning animals, many of which have short life spans,’ it said.
'The applicants propose to use state of the art high efficiency incineration equipment to burn small quantities, in a quiet and non-hazardous, discreet process.'
But the proposal drew widespread opposition from people living nearby who said it was an 'inappropriate' use of the building.
Randolph Road resident Nick Hinks said there was no need for such a facility to be built in the city.
'This application has not given any thought to the neighbourhood,' he said. ‘[It] is not a plan that should be given any chance of success.
'A pet crematorium is not a million miles away from a human crematorium and that would never be entertained.
'Being a pet owner I can understand the need for such a facility although not in one of the most built-up cities in the UK'.
Despite concerns about the potential for noise problems and other pollution problems, the Environment Agency said it had no concerns about the application.'
But the city council ruled that not enough evidence had been provided to demonstrate the scheme would have a limited effect on people living in the area.
Published on Thursday, the decision notice said: ‘The proposed change of use would result in an adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties about which the applicant has failed to provide confirmation that the proposed use would not result in unreasonable harm.'