skip to Main Content

Dog breeding business illegally running away from home in Derbyshire village faces closure

A council is trying to shut down a dog breeding business which is illegally run from a house in a Derbyshire village.

Amber Valley Borough Council has taken enforcement action to stop dog farming in Brickyard Lane, Kilburn.

He says that even though the owners have a breeding license that allows them to have 27 dogs living on the property at the same time, they are not allowed to run a business from home.

The council considers the noise from the business to be unacceptable in a residential area.

In addition, the borough council claims that “substantial redevelopment” has taken place in the house without planning permission.

This includes a large kennel and dog run complex to the rear of the house, overlooking Station Close, and an additional outbuilding to the front of the property to be used as an aviary housing what the council describes as “a substantial number of birds”.

Julie Braddock and Wayne Elliott own the property in Brickyard Lane, Kilburn, and currently run the businesses Rockerdar Canine and JB Pet Supplies from home.

Rockerdar Canine explains on their website that they are a small family owned licensed breeding business specializing in Border Collies and Jack Russell Terriers.

It says the company holds a range of qualifications in canine behavior, herding and canine body language.

The website also says it operates from the same property in Brickyard Lane.



The property in Brickyard Lane, Kilburn, which is home to a dog breeding business

It lists that there are three male breeding dogs and six female breeding dogs.

The site says Jack Russell puppies cost between £850 and £1,250 to buy from the company and Border Collie puppies cost £950 if not Kennel Club registered and £1,250 if they are. recorded.

Another website listing shows that JB Pet Supplies also operates out of the same building, including under an old name of Julie Braddock JB Pet Supplies.

Amber Valley Borough Council served an enforcement notice on Ms Braddock and Mr Elliott in June and now the couple have appealed which will be dealt with by government planning inspectors.

The borough council advises that the large rear extension is not permitted (allowed without planning permission) as it is attached to the main house and projects beyond the wall of the original property by more than four metres.

All things Politics in Derbyshire

It says the extension was also not built for residential use and therefore “does not comply with the regulations”.

The council says the aviary located in the front outbuilding “increases the commercial enterprises on the property”.

It says: ‘A significant number of animals reside on the property, including a number of breeding dogs and young females, the property has a dog breeding license which allows up to 27 dogs to reside on the property at a time.

“The aviary building is a prominent building at the front of the property which holds a significant number of birds.

“The local plan indicates that permission will not be given to development which results in a significant increase in noise pollution levels.”

He cites another council policy that “proposals for commercial development require developments to be compatible with their surroundings.”



The council said the big extension should be scrapped

The Brickyard Lane house is surrounded by houses.

The Borough Council states: “Dog breeding and animal care activities within the newly constructed aviary building are facilities deemed incompatible with their environment and are likely to significantly increase noise levels.

“The developments are not acceptable due to the close relationship with neighboring properties; the number of dogs and other animals present on the property and the increase in comings and goings related to commercial activities.

“The intensive use is therefore considered to have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of neighboring properties and the residential amenity of the wider area.”

The authority says the rear extension is ‘particularly prominent’ and ‘inappropriate’ and ‘highly visible’ to residents at the rear of the Station Close site.

He says the planning conditions could not overcome his objections to the development.

The enforcement notice he served required the owners to take the following actions:

  • Ceasing to use the land as a commercial dog breeding and animal selling business
  • Do not breed on the land more than three litters of dogs in a calendar year or part of the land for the first calendar year
  • Remove the rear extension
  • Remove dependency

In response, the owners appealed on the following grounds:



The house has signs that say “beware of dogs running free”

  • The building permit must be granted for what is alleged in the notice
  • The control failure alleged in the formal notice did not in fact occur
  • By the time the enforcement notice was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action against the items set out in the notice
  • Steps required to comply with notice requirements are excessive and lesser steps would overcome objections

Residents can write comments as part of the appeal process.

These can be submitted online at acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk quoting call references APP/M1005/C/19/3234190 and APP/M1005/C/19/3234191.

Letters quoting call references can also be sent to: Nicholas Hamilton, The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3G, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

The deadline for submission is Monday, December 30.

Back To Top