Proposed agricultural storage building and kennels.

Proposed agricultural storage building and kennels

The Senior Planning Officer advised that amended plans had been received replacing the proposed septic tank with a cesspit as recommended by the Environmental Agency.

In addition the Senior Planning officer corrected Paragraph 5.2 which stated ’42 objections have been received from households in the immediate locality as well as some from outside of the Brilley area’. This should have read ’42 objections have been received from 30 households from the immediate locality as well as outside of the Brilley area’.

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that six further letters had been received from neighbouring properties, four of which from the resident of ‘The Salt Box’. Attached to one of the letters were copies of two letters from neighbours to ‘Sheepcote’ the existing site of the kennels, which made reference to the disturbance in the summer months from the kennels. Another of the letters made detailed comments on the Noise Impact Assessment.

In addition, a letter had been received from Marc Willis (Chartered Town Planner) on behalf of local residents. The letter stated concerns about the Design and Access Statement Submitted, Waste disposal, the possible use of the agricultural building as a ‘flesh house’, hound numbers and local plan policy.

The Senior Planning officer said that the additional letters raised many issues of concern in relationship to the application. However it was considered that no new material issues of planning consideration were raised.

In the event that members were minded to give delegated authority to the Head of Planning and Transportation to approve the application, the Senior Planning Officer proposed amendments to conditions 3 and 5 to accord with best practice on the use of planning conditions. Theses amendments were outlined below, together with an additional condition restricting the number of hounds. 

Condition 3

The building hereby approved shall only be used as a kennel for hunt hounds and for no other purpose of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: The local planning authority wish to control the specific use of the premises, in the interest of local amenity and to comply   with Policy DR2 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.

Condition 5

When the premises currently known as Brilley Wood, ceases to be occupied by the kennel huntsman in charge of the hounds kennelled in the building hereby permitted, the use of the said building as a kennels to house hunt hounds shall cease and thereafter shall be used only for the purpose of agricultural storage and for no other purpose of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: The nature of the development is such that it is only considered acceptable in this location if there is on site supervision for the kennels and to comply with Policy S1 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan

The Senior Planning Officer proposed an additional condition which would limit the building’s capacity to kennel no more than 50 hunt hounds at any one time.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Johnson spoke on behalf of the Parish Council, Mrs Morris spoke in objection to the application and Miss Lloyd-Jones spoke in support.

Councillor JW Hope, the Local Ward Member, thanked Members for attending the recently held site visit. He said that he was not opposed to the site being developed, but felt that the application before the Sub-Committee was for an inappropriate use. He proposed refusal of planning permission for the application based on the following reasons: 1) The detrimental affect on the residential amenities, 2) The unacceptable odour from such a development and 3) The character of the surrounding area would be detrimentally affected.

Councillor TM James said that he could not support the application as the kennels were not in the interests of the local community. He observed that any noise from the kennels would be ‘funnelled’ towards the nearby dwellings creating an unacceptable noise nuisance. He also voiced concerns that the development was proposed so close to residential dwellings.

Councillor WLS Bowen said that hunting hounds were extremely loud and that locating them near to dwellings would create an unacceptable noise level for neighbouring properties. He added that the bad odour produced by such a large number of hounds would be unacceptable for the community.

Councillor A Seldon said that there was no wind information contained within the section of the report concerned with the three day noise study undertaken at the existing Golden Valley hunt site. He was of the opinion that wind direction would play a major part in the distance that noise carries. He felt this would require further investigation and said that he could not support the application.

Councillor PJ McCaul pointed out that the roads surrounding the proposed development were narrow and felt that this would create danger for road users, hunt personnel and the hounds. He said that for this reason he could not support the application.

Councillor TW Hunt said that he understood the concerns raised by objectors and fellow Members, but a similar hunt kennel in his own Ward had never been the subject of complaints from members of the public.

The Northern Team Leader said that the report was written based on existing planning policy and evidence gathered by the case officer and that he had every confidence it was factually correct.

Councillor LO Barnett said that she also could not support the application and agreed with the concerns expressed by other Members. She said that she felt well informed by the clearly presented report from the case officer.

RESOLVED

The Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application subject to the reasons for refusal set out below (and any further reasons for refusal felt to be necessary by the Head of Planning and Transportation) provided that the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee.

1. The proposed development would be detrimental to the residential amenity of the surrounding area
2. The odour from the proposed development would be detrimental to the residents of the surrounding residential area
3. The proposed development would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area.

If the Head of Planning and Transportation does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application subject to such reasons for refusal referred to above.

[Note: following the vote, the Northern Team Leader said he was minded to refer the application to the Head of Planning and Transportation]