KENNELS CANNED
PLANS to set up a boarding kennel for up to 32 dogs near homes in Church Broughton have been rejected.
Dozens of residents attended a South Derbyshire District Council meeting on Tuesday to make their concerns clear about plans put forward by Mr J Bailey.
Councillors felt the noise caused by the business would be a nuisance, cause “undue misery”– and any conditions aimed at preventing this would be near impossible to enforce.
Members of the planning committee therefore refused the application.
The site of the proposed kennel in Bent Lane, on a plot known as Greenacre, between Foston and Church Broughton, is close to a number of former farm buildings that have been converted into houses.
One Bent Lane resident, Andrew Marshall, said every occupant of those homes was opposed to the plans and feared excessive noise from barking dogs. He said: “Dogs are pack animals that bark together – also a dog is more likely to bark in a strange environment and not all dogs bark at the same frequency or at the same level.”
He also said barking in persistent, short bursts was likely to be more disruptive.
The applicant said dogs which do not calm down on arrival and are persistently loud will not be allowed to stay.
In response, Mr Marshall said: “Clearly it is impractical for the owner of a noisy dog to return from their holiday to come to collect their dog. This kennel would devastate the lives of so many residents and ruin our ability to enjoy our gardens.”
The kennels would have provided jobs for one full-time employee and an apprentice and been run by the tenant of the house on the existing site.
It would have contained 14 kennels, capable of accommodating 28 to 32 dogs, while the remainder of the field would be used for exercise space.
The applicant said that there is a shortfall of boarding kennel space in South Derbyshire, beyond the 13 which are already up and running in the district.
Last night, an agent for the applicant said: “There are number of substantial housing developments being built and this would see an increased demand for kennels in the area.
“This will contribute to the local economy. We have completed a thorough noise assessment and we feel that the proposal will not result in the loss of residential amenity.
“No dogs will be outside before 7.30am and after 9pm. The kennels would only be full if 14 residents with two dogs each wanted to put their dogs in the kennel for the same period, which is not likely.”
Council officers stated noise which was at an excessive level for five minutes or more could be reported to the authority – which would then send licensing enforcement officers out to assess the situation and conduct tests.
Officers could also set up noise monitoring systems around the site to track this.
Deputy leader, Councillor Andy Billings, one of the representatives for the ward, said a “reactive approach” to combating excessive noise is “too late”.
He said: “These plans seem to be based largely on assumption and uncertainty. The noise predictions are based on only two dogs and say that dogs only bark when being fed.
“I have dogs and mine don’t bark at all when eating food, they whine, but only bark when outside in the garden. Each dog is different.
“I’m aware residents can hear dogs barking at Happy Hounds Play Centre, which is an indoor facility. That is considerably further away from this site.”
Officers had proposed conditions to only allow two dogs to be walked at a time in the exercise areas. Dogs would only be outside for two hours a day.
Councillors said this would be unenforceable. Officers advised that noise breaches if found to be persistent, could lead to the council taking the applicant straight to court. This would make it to where any further breaches would incur fines but would not prevent the business from operating. Councillor Julie Patten, also a ward member for the site, said walking two dogs at a time for 30 minutes each would not leave the business with enough time to exercise up to 32 dogs.
She said: “The business plan seems fundamentally flawed. This would cause undue misery to residents.”
Councillor Robert Pearson, said he owned two small dogs which are worn out after 20 minutes and walking all the kennel’s animals in two hours “is not possible”.
Councillor John Harrison said: “This is a totally inappropriate place to site such an activity. The potential adverse implications on the neighbours is too big. The potential noise problems are unacceptable.”
Council leader Councillor Martyn Ford said: “We can make this site look very attractive but what we cannot do is condition adequately. I don’t think that with the best will in the world that we can do that, and we can’t have officers out there every day for noisy dogs.”
This kennel would devastate the lives of residents and stop us enjoying our gardens. Andrew Marshall