Angry neighbors have lost their fight to shut down allegedly “illegally built” dog breeding kennels near their homes.
Residents near Smithy Farm are concerned about noise from barking dogs and pollution, as well as road safety issues.
However, after the owners’ plans changed, motorway bosses said they no longer opposed the project.
‘Mr and Mrs Emery’ have now received permission from the East Staffordshire Borough Council planning committee to continue their kennel business at Smithy Farm, Mill Lane, Gratwich, near Uttoxeter.
The applicants requested the maintenance of the use of part of the farmyard for the breeding of dogs, which includes the maintenance of kennels and the construction of a shed and a whelping store – where female dogs give birth – as well as an acoustic fence.
Those consulted by law – those who must be consulted on planning applications by law – raised no objections.
However, Kingstone Parish Council says there is overwhelming opposition in the community due to the impact of noise, dog soiling and “loss of amenity/enjoyment to local residents”.
He said “there would be constant barking at the site, which is not manned and monitored once a day by the breeder”.
The council also claims that dog fouling has increased in the area surrounding the property and has been linked to animal husbandry, as well as an increase in “antisocial hours” at which the owner tends to the animals.
Councilors do not believe the acoustic fence will make a difference to the noise level.
Eleven objections were submitted by residents on the grounds of noise, disturbance and pollution, road safety and drainage implications and animal welfare (including the impact of boundary fencing).
An objector, Julia Owen, spoke at the virtual meeting and said the owners did not live on site and were not on site to look after the dogs.
She said: “The owner arrives on site at 4.30am which is unacceptable.
“The site is messy and does not correspond to the neighborhood.
“The kennels were built illegally, without any consultation
“This will only benefit one house and will not take into account the other 10 (nearby) houses.”
However, Jon Imber, acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, told the meeting that highways and environmental health raised no objections.
He added: “As far as noise goes, this is a very small business of five dogs and two litters a year. It’s a working farmyard and there will be some noise.
“Applicants want to move into the site quickly, so this will avoid early arrivals.”
The council’s planning officers, in recommending the plans for approval, said the application “would not be significantly detrimental to residential amenities in terms of dominating or overshadowing impacts”.
They added: “The project would not significantly impair the visual amenities of the locality as the buildings and associated fencing are of a size and appearance that could reasonably be part of a farm area in a locality. rural.”
They also said the environmental health officer was satisfied that a ‘noise report and management plan’ showed the development ‘would not result in a significant reduction in amenities for nearby residents due to noise disturbance “.
Councilor Greg Hall said at the meeting, “I hope the candidates maintain this site in a way that doesn’t disrupt everyone’s lives and prove the residents wrong.”