Residents’ joy as boarding kennels plan rejected again
PLANS for a dog-boarding kennel in a village near Ashbourne have been thrown out by a government inspector, to the delight of neighbours.
Mr J Bailey of J Bailey and Son was wanting to build the boarding kennels on a site known as Greenacre in Bent Lane, between Foston and Church Broughton.
It was the second time he had submitted plans for boarding kennels, housing up to 32 dogs, but the previous two applications had also been rejected.
He chose to take the second refused application to an appeal determined by a planning inspector.
Both council refusals had been to the delight of dozens of neighbouring residents who have come out in force against the plans on both occasions.
Now Kevin Savage, a government planning inspector, has rejected an appeal from Mr Bailey, which had been submitted in a bid to overturn a second refusal from South Derbyshire District Council.
As with the council’s reasons for refusals and objections from neighbours, the inspector also felt that the proposed business would cause too much noise disturbance in a residential area.
Mr Savage wrote in his appeal decision that he accepted the benefits of the business, including job creation and filling a hole in the market.
But he said that these were outweighed by the potential disturbance.
He wrote: “The proposal would create a facility for which the appellant has demonstrated a local need, particularly for overnight accommodation, and I acknowledge the letters of support submitted.
“There would also be work created for local builders and the creation of two full-time positions.
“The proposal would therefore deliver social and economic benefits for the area.
“Having regard to its scale and the contribution it would make to the range of kennel facilities in the area, I afford moderate weight to these benefits overall.
“However, these benefits would be insufficient to outweigh the identified harm to neighbours’ living conditions, and the resulting conflict with the development plan, to which I afford significant weight.” Mr Savage said that he was not satisfied that proposed measures such as acoustic fencing – aimed at reducing noise levels – would be sufficient enough to “reduce to an acceptable level” noise which would be “disruptive and harmful” and have a “significant adverse effect on neighbours’ enjoyment of their properties”.
In his application, refused for the second time in March last year, Mr Bailey had said: “The proposals would meet a demonstrable local need for high quality boarding kennel accommodation in the area.
“And in doing so, I believe it would deliver economic benefits.”
Planning officers at the council contended: “The nature of the development could create potential adverse impacts on neighbour amenity affecting their living conditions.”
Officers said the development was “likely to give rise to unacceptable living conditions” for those living nearby.
It was likely to give rise to unacceptable living conditions for those living nearby
Planning officers