REPORT of DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGULATORY SERVICES to SOUTH EASTERN AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE 09 April 2018 Application Number FUL/MAL/17/00556 AA Dog Rescue, Oldfield Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingdon, Location , CM3 6EZ Change of use of land and building to a mixed use of a dog rescue centre and equestrian use which will result in 27 kennels, isolation Proposal block and vet area and 11 stables and will include a detailed mitigation scheme, relocation of exercise areas, fencing and landscaping. Applicant Ms Charlene Nathan Agent Mr Ashley Wynn - Greenhayes Planning Target Decision Date 12th April 2018 Case Officer Ian Harrison, TEL: 01621 875751 Parish LATCHINGDON Reason for Referral to the Level of Public Participation Committee / Council

1. RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the reasons set out below and in Section 8 of this report.

2. SITE MAP

Please see overleaf.

Agenda Item no. 5 Our Vision: To make District a better place to live, work and enjoy Agenda Item no. 5 3. SUMMARY

3.1 Proposal / brief overview, including any relevant background information

3.1.1 The main part of the application site measures approximately 6000 square metres and is located 285 metres to the south of Burnham Road, Latchingdon. Leading to the north of the main part of the site and connecting the site to Burnham Road is an access track which is included within the application site and continues beyond the application site to serve the dwelling at Treetops.

3.1.2 In 2014 it was brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority that the site was being used as a dog rescue facility. Subsequent retrospective applications and enforcement action has been undertaken in relation to this use of land. This application has been submitted to seek permission to use the application site primarily as a dog rescue facility. The proposal includes a number of works and mitigation measures that have not previously been proposed, as will be discussed below, and therefore it has been accepted that the application should be considered by the Local Planning Authority. It must be noted that the application should be treated on its planning merits only, based on how the site would be used with the mitigation measures that are proposed in place, rather than previous experiences of the use of the site.

3.1.3 The site contains a large building that measures 23.8 metres deep and 19.7 metres wide with a maximum height of 6 metres. The building is constructed from blockwork and sheet metal to the elevations and roof. The submitted plans show that this would be used to provide two workshops, a store room and 27 kennels. The building would be adapted from the existing situation to incorporate a new structure within the building that would be constructed from sound absorbing/insulating materials, effectively creating a sound-proofed enclosure within the existing building, including an internal ceiling/roof. It is proposed to install mechanical ventilation.

3.1.4 To the east of the main building are two lines of stables that measure 3.6 metres by 23.8 metres and 3.8 metres by 19.8 metres with maximum heights of 3.9 and 3.2 metres respectively. These buildings are constructed from timber and metal to the elevations and sheet metal and corrugated metal to the roofs. The plans submitted with this application show that these structures would be used as stables and the applicant’s planning statement sets out that this is to increase the equestrian use of the site in line with the site’s former lawful use. Although not specifically stated, it is assumed that the stables will only be used for the keeping of horses and it is noted that this could be secured through the imposition of a condition on any planning permission that is granted.

3.1.5 To the south of the main building is a ‘veterinary building and store’ that measures 23.2 metres by 8 metres and is constructed from metal sheeting to the elevations. The submitted plans show that the building would be used as a ‘veterinary area’ and an ‘isolation area’ as well as including a workshop. A similar sound insulating structure as described above is also proposed to be installed within the building.

3.1.6 To the north of the main part of the building is the main parking area to serve the development with two caravans that are known to be used for purposes ancillary to

Agenda Item no. 5 the use of the site and not for residential purposes. Only one of those caravans is shown on the submitted plans and the other is not therefore to be considered as part of this application. A small building is also located in this area that measures 4 metres by 11.6metres with a height of approximately 4.5 metres. This is constructed from timber to the elevations with a pitched roof. The building is used for purposes ancillary to the operation of the site.

3.1.7 At the north east corner of the site is a menage that has been used for the exercising of dogs. It is proposed to reduce the use of this exercise area and use two exercise pens to the south east of the kennels.

3.1.8 A management plan accompanied the application when it was originally submitted. This has been amended during the course of the application, with the amended plan being the subject of a further round of public consultation. The management plan includes the following proposals to control and mitigate the use of the site:

 Visitor’s hours limited to 1200 to 1700 from Thursday to Sunday (inclusive).  The restriction of entry to the kennels to staff and volunteers.  The signing in and out of staff and volunteers.  Limitations on the timing of feeding to occur and 0730 and 1730 with small groups being feed by 4 members of staff or volunteers. All food will be prepared prior to entry to the kennels and doors will be kept closed during feeding.  Dogs will be left to sleep from 1800 with all doors, gates and windows closed.  Ventilation will be provided through mechanical means which will be inspected and maintained on a weekly basis.  Dogs will only be walked between 0900 and 1100. There will be 27 dogs with a minimum of 10 staff volunteers. In one place it is stated that a maximum of 2 dogs will be walked per member of staff, but in another place it is stated that each dog will be individually walked by a volunteer for a maximum of 30 minutes. All doors will be kept shut as much as possible.  Dogs will be given toys in their kennels after having been walked.  Temperament depending, some dogs would be exercised for a maximum of 30 minutes in the defined pens in the afternoon, with a maximum of 2 dogs per exercise pen and 1 member of staff or volunteer.  The pens will be enclosed with acoustic fencing to avoid the distraction of dogs.  Fencing and acoustic fencing will be installed around pens to ensure that dogs are not distracted and mitigate noise escape.  The ‘sand school’ will only be used by horses and not dogs.  ‘Clicker’ training will take place internally and the use of clickers to control dogs will prevent the need for the use of voices.  Calming music will be played within the building.  Cleaning of kennels will occur when dogs are being walked.  Cleaning will occur on a daily basis.  The internal temperature of the building will be monitored.  A scheme for displaying and training people with respect to these measures.  Noise and building fabric monitoring will occur on six month and yearly basis respectively.

Agenda Item no. 5  A bespoke, but similar, arrangement would be in place for new dogs that would be kept in the isolation areas to begin with.

3.1.9 The application has also been accompanied by a planning statement that is considered to be largely summarised by the above. It is relevant to note that this includes an assessment in relation to the existing unauthorised use of the site indicating the works that are proposed as described above as well as the reduction of the number of kennels by 67% (from 83 to 27) the removal of moveable kennels and the reinstatement of greater equestrian use of the site.

3.1.10 An updated noise report (dated 01/03/17) accompanied the application and included the following comments:

 In previous reports it was concluded that the maximum noise reading at the nearest noise-sensitive dwelling should not exceed the existing maximum noise even and therefore targets of 41dB(A) and 27 dB(A) were set for daytime and at night.  The existing building would offer sound reduction of 29 dB.  Alterations to the building would include sealing gaps, retaining double- glazing, the introduction of acoustic plasterboard, mineral wool and sound absorbing panels to the walls and ceiling, the upgrade of the building entrance and the installation of mechanical ventilation.  It is noted that noise from mechanical ventilation equipment will also need to be managed.  3 metre tall noise barriers to the external play areas would achieve 16 dB of noise reduction.  Noise modelling has been provided to show the escape of noise from the exercise areas and from within the building.

This was submitted as an update to a noise assessment dated October 2016 which includes the following comments:

 Measurements of background noise levels were undertaken in three locations.  It is calculated that at the nearest dwelling (115 metres from the site) the noise of barking dogs would be at a level of 57dB.  29dB and 16dB mitigation are required though building fabric attenuation to address

3.1.11 Subsequently a further update was submitted on 14/02/18. This was subject to an additional phase of public consultation and includes the following:

 No justification supports an argument that boarded dogs in kennels create less noise than rescue dogs and therefore weight should be given to other examples within the surrounding area.  A commentary that sets out a number of the proposed management measures which are also included within the management plan that is discussed above.  The manner in which the proposed use would occur supports the findings of the original noise assessments that are summarised above.

Agenda Item no. 5  Mechanical ventilation would be used and the details of this can be addressed through the imposition of a condition.  The support for other proposals at sites within has been based on far less mitigation and assessment than the fully sealed development that is proposed by this application.

3.1.12 It should be noted that there are a number of minor inconsistencies between the timings that are set out within the Management Plan and that which is the basis of the assessment within the noise update.

3.1.13 The closest dwellings to the site that are outside the applicant’s control are Treetops (115 metres to the west of the site), Arley Grange (243 metres to the north), Greenacres (290 metres to the north east) and Meadow View Farm (55 metres to the east)

3.2 Conclusion

3.2.1 Having taken all material planning considerations into account, an objection is raised to the proposed development on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the dog rescue use of the site would not cause material harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents. Whilst the proposal is considered to be acceptable, or capable of being made to be acceptable in all other respects and regard has been had to the level of support for the proposal and the reasoning behind that support, it is considered that the harm that would be caused by the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, the National Planning Practice Guidance and policies S1, D1 and D2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan 2017.

4. MAIN RELEVANT POLICIES

Members’ attention is drawn to the list of background papers attached to the agenda.

4.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 including paragraphs:  7 Three dimensions to sustainable development  8 Roles of sustainable development  14 Presumption in favour of sustainable development  17 Core planning principles  29-41 Promoting sustainable transport  56-68 Requiring good design  109-125 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment  196-197 Determining applications

4.2 Approved Maldon District Local Development Plan (July 2012) Polices:  Policy S1 – Sustainable Development  Policy S8 – Settlement Boundaries and the Countryside  Policy D1– Design Quality and Built Environment  Policy D2 – Climate Change and Environmental Impact of New Development

Agenda Item no. 5  Policy N2 – Natural Environmental and Biodiversity  Policy T1– Sustainable Transport  Policy T2 – Accessibility

4.3 Relevant Planning Guidance / Documents:  Car Parking Standards  Essex Design Guide  National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)  National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)  Maldon District Design Guidance

5. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

5.1 Principle of Development

5.1.1 The site lies outside the settlement boundary of Latchingdon as defined by the approved Maldon District Local Development Plan.

5.1.2 Policy S1 of the Local Development Plan states that “When considering development proposals the Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF and will apply, inter alia, the following key principles in policy and decision making:

3) Promote the effective use of land and prioritise development on previously developed land and planned growth at the Garden Suburbs and Strategic Allocations; 4) Support growth within the environmental limits of the District; 5) Emphasise the importance of high quality design in all developments; 12) Maintain the rural character of the District without compromising the identity of its individual settlements;

5.1.3 Policy S8 states that the countryside will be protected for its landscape, natural resources and ecological value as well as its intrinsic character and beauty. Outside of the defined settlement boundaries, the Garden Suburbs and the Strategic Allocations, planning permission for development will only be granted where the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is not adversely impacted upon and provided it is for either:

b) employment generating proposals in accordance with policy E1. e) the re-use of a redundant or disused building that would lead to an enhancement of the immediate setting in accordance with policy E4. f) rural diversification, recreation and tourism (including equestrian and related activities) proposals in accordance with policies E4 and E5

5.1.4 Policy E4 states that the Council will support the change of use of existing rural buildings to other employment generation uses if it can be demonstrated that:

Agenda Item no. 5 a) There is a justifiable and functional need for the proposal; b) It will contribute to the viability of the agricultural business as a whole; c) Any development respects the building’s historic or architectural significance; d) Any development will not negatively impact upon wildlife and the natural environment; e) No storage of raw materials or finished goods is to take place outside the building if it would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area; and f) The use of the building would not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing businesses in nearby towns and villages.

5.1.5 The most recent lawful use of the site appears to have been related to equestrian use. Although it is not an agricultural use, it is considered that the land required for the operation (internal and external) and the operational advantage of being in a relatively isolated location means that a countryside location is appropriate for a use of this type. It is considered that this dog rescue represents the re-use of an existing building within the countryside and therefore, whilst the proposal does not meet criteria a) and b) of policy E4, it is considered that the principle of the proposed use can be viewed as an appropriate form of rural diversification. The other criterion is considered to be of limited relevance to the use of the site as a dog rescue.

5.1.6 Although the policies have evolved, it is considered that the general aim and thrust of the policies of the Local Development Plan (LDP) are comparable to the policies that were utilised in the assessment of the previous applications at the site. No objection to the broad principle of the proposed use of land was raised previously and it is considered that this previous conclusion should carry some weight in the assessment of this application.

5.1.7 For the reasons stated above, no objection is raised to the overall principle of the proposed development. However, it remains necessary to consider all other aspects of the development which will be undertaken below.

5.2 Design and Impact on the Character of the Area

5.2.1 The planning system promotes high quality development through good inclusive design and layout, and the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities. Good design should be indivisible from good planning. Recognised principles of good design seek to create a high quality built environment for all types of development.

5.2.2 It should be noted that good design is fundamental to high quality new development and its importance is reflected in the NPPF. The NPPF states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people”.

5.2.3 Paragraph 64 also states that “permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions”.

Agenda Item no. 5 5.2.4 This principle of good quality design is reflected to the approved LDP. The basis of policy D1 of the approved LDP seeks to ensure that all development will respect and enhance the character and local context and make a positive contribution in terms of:-

a) Architectural style, use of materials, detailed design features and construction methods. Innovative design and construction solutions will be considered where appropriate; b) Height, size, scale, form, massing and proportion; c) Landscape setting, townscape setting and skylines; d) Layout, orientation, and density; e) Historic environment particularly in relation to designated and non- designated heritage assets; f) Natural environment particularly in relation to designated and non-designated sites of biodiversity / geodiversity value; and g) Energy and resource efficiency.

5.2.5 The site is a significant distance from the main public highway of Burnham Road to the north and due to the presence of other properties, landscaping and other such enclosures, it is noted that the site is not prominent from the public domain. The visual impact of the structures at the site is therefore localised.

5.2.6 The presence of caravans at the site was previously considered to be a negative aspect of the use of the site and it is also considered that the erection of extensive fencing at the site would also cause the development to have a visual impact that is harsher than a conventional rural setting. However, it is considered that the relatively discreet location of the site mitigates part of the visual impact of the use, one of the caravans is not shown on the plans and the removal of an unauthorised caravan is being enforced through other means. A landscaping scheme could be required to soften the impacts of the structures at the site if the application is found acceptable.

5.2.7 As with the principle of the use, although some concerns were raised previously, the previous applications were not refused on the grounds of the visual impact of the development and it is considered that there is no reason to reach a different conclusion in relation to this application.

5.3 Impact on Residential Amenity

5.3.1 Policy D2 of the Maldon District Local Plan states that “Minimising all forms of possible pollution including air, land, water, odour, noise and light. Any detrimental impacts and potential risks to the human and natural environment will need to be adequately addressed by appropriate avoidance, alleviation and mitigation measures.” Similarly, policy D1 states that development should “Protect the amenity of surrounding areas taking into account privacy, overlooking, outlook, noise, smell, light, visual impact, pollution, daylight and sunlight.” This is consistent with the NPPF, one of the core principles of which states that “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.” Moreover, paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that “The planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by… preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at

Agenda Item no. 5 unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.”

5.3.2 In addition, the National Planning Practice Guidance states that “Local planning authorities’ plan-making and decision taking should take account of the acoustic environment and in doing so consider:

 whether or not a significant adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur;  whether or not an adverse effect is occurring or likely to occur; and  whether or not a good standard of amenity can be achieved.”

5.3.3 It goes on to state that “Increasing noise exposure will at some point cause the significant observed adverse effect level boundary to be crossed. Above this level the noise causes a material change in behaviour such as keeping windows closed for most of the time or avoiding certain activities during periods when the noise is present. If the exposure is above this level the planning process should be used to avoid this effect occurring, by use of appropriate mitigation such as by altering the design and layout. Such decisions must be made taking account of the economic and social benefit of the activity causing the noise, but it is undesirable for such exposure to be caused. At the highest extreme, noise exposure would cause extensive and sustained changes in behaviour without an ability to mitigate the effect of noise. The impacts on health and quality of life are such that regardless of the benefits of the activity causing the noise, this situation should be prevented from occurring.

5.3.4 The previous application was refused on the grounds that, based on the information provided, the noise and general disturbance generated by the use causes harm to the occupiers of nearby residential properties to the detriment of their standard of accommodation. It was also determined that the mitigation measures proposed by the applicant would not have alleviated this situation. As set out above, it is noted that the proposal is now materially different, but it is necessary for the Local Planning Authority to assess whether the previous concerns have been overcome and have regard to the previous decisions that have been made in relation to this site.

5.3.5 To accompany this application the applicant has submitted a noise assessment which was updated prior to the submission of the application. A management plan has also been submitted. Both of these documents have been the subject of updates during the course of this application. The most relevant elements of these documents are set out at 3.1.8, 3.1.10 and 3.1.11 above.

5.3.6 The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have undertaken three appraisals of submissions by the applicant, one following the submission of the application, one following the submission of a response to the initial response and one following the most recent submissions by the applicant. The comments received can be summarised as follows:

 There are grounds for debate over the correct methodology for calculating and assessing the impact of noise caused by dog barking.  Due to the nature of the noise it is considered that a subjective assessment is of equal value to a statistical assessment.

Agenda Item no. 5  It is highlighted that the submissions of the applicant note that dog barking is the dominant noise source as experienced by those attending the site to undertake noise assessments.  There are concerns about the accuracy of the assessment of the background noise levels.  There are differences between the sound recordings that have been taken which demonstrate the variable nature of the use.  The measurements used for the basis of the assessment and to determine the mitigation required have not been adequately justified and it is not clear why a worse scenario has not been used for calculations as they have been demonstrated to occur at the site. For example, the greatest divergence between background noise and maximum noise that has been used for assessment by the applicant is 29dB, but the statistics available demonstrate that differences of up to 38dB have been recorded.  Comparison with other planning applications is not relevant as the examples cited are applications for kennels, most pertinently the addition of additional kennels to an existing operation, which has previously established that it is operational without noise complaints being generated. It is also highlighted that these are applications for kennels rather than a dog rescue and therefore, whilst dogs are present at the site, the character of the noise is materially different due to the dogs having been trained and kept differently.  A purpose built structure should be erected to provide appropriate mitigation rather than retro-fitting the existing building which it has been proven is inadequate.  Insufficient details have been provided of the mechanical ventilations and any noise that would derive from that equipment.  Unacceptable noise impact from the operation of the site has been established, inadequate measures have been taken to address the noise nuisance in the past and there is no guarantee that the proposed mitigation measures would be installed or implemented.  It is considered that it would be difficult to impose a condition that would ensure the implementation of the submitted management plan that would comply with the relevant tests. However the latest management plan is considered to be a “good basis for the activity.”  The latest response has advised that the additional submissions have not adequately addressed the concerns that had been raised earlier.

5.3.7 In addition to the above, it is noted that there are a number of minor inconsistencies between the timings that are set out within the Management Plan and that which has been the basis of the assessment within the updated noise report. It is also considered relevant to note that monitoring the internal temperature of the building is proposed, but there are no suggestions for how to mitigate any temperature issues. There may be a demand to install air-conditioning units as well as mechanical ventilation and/or open the building which has not been addressed within the applicant’s submissions.

5.3.8 It is considered that substantial weight should be afforded to the specialist advice that has been received by the Local Planning Authority. The National Planning Practice Guidance states that “the decision to grant or refuse a planning application ultimately rests with the local planning authority taking in to account all relevant planning considerations, and not just the advice from one consultee. Local Authorities should Agenda Item no. 5 be aware of the need to be able to justify a decision taken, including where it is contrary to a statutory consultee’s view.” In this case, it is considered that there are no grounds to reach a view that is different to the advice that has been received from the consultee.

5.3.9 In line with the advice contained within National Planning Practice Guidance, it is noted that the applicant included submissions that show that it could be attempted to mitigate the impact of the use. However, for the reasons set out above and within the fuller advice that has been provided by the Environmental Health Officers, it is considered that the level of mitigation required has not been satisfactorily assessed, it is not possible to be satisfied that the mitigation would be adequate and therefore it is not possible to be satisfied that the proposal would not cause a significant adverse effect on the quality of life of neighbouring residents.

5.3.10 For this reason it is considered that it must be concluded that it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the use of the application site for the purpose proposed would not cause substantial harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents through the noise generated at the site. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the abovementioned policies of the development plan and the advice contained within the National Planning Practice Framework. The proposal should therefore be refused unless material considerations dictate otherwise.

5.3.11 In corroboration of this, it is noted that substantial letters of objection have been received from three of the closest four neighbouring properties that are listed above. It is accepted that these objections might have their root in the experiences of the existing operation rather than or as much as the likely impact of the proposed operation, which would be materially different, but it is considered that this is additional grounds to apply weight to the advice of the environmental health officers.

5.3.12 It is noted that other kennel developments have been approved within Maldon District. It is established planning law that each case is to be considered on its own merits and with regard to the planning merits of each application. It is therefore the case that the other developments should not prejudice the ability of the Local Planning Authority to determine this application on its own merits.

5.4 Access, Parking and Highway Safety

5.4.1 Policies D1 and T2 of the approved LDP seek to include safe and secure vehicle and cycle parking having regard to the Council’s adopted parking standards and maximise connectivity within the development and to the surrounding areas, including the provision of high quality and safe pedestrian, cycle and, where appropriate, horse riding routes.

5.4.2 The application site is accessed by a private track which is shared by two other properties. The access onto Burnham Road is 300 metres to the north. There is space for the parking of cars within the application site and it has previously been determined that this level of parking provision is appropriate at this site. No objection has been raised to the application by the Highway Authority and the previous application was not refused on those grounds. It is therefore considered that no

Agenda Item no. 5 objection should be raised to the application on grounds of highway safety, access or parking.

5.5 Other Material Considerations

Dog Welfare

5.5.1 The Local Planning Authority have received many letters of representation that both support and object to the proposal. Most of the letters of support highlight the benefits that are derived in terms of the improved welfare of dogs. Positive and negative comments have been received in relation to the conditions within the buildings at the site. The Local Planning Authority is not the responsible authority in relation to animal welfare and in reaching the decision must focus primarily on the planning issues of relevance, determining the application in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations dictate otherwise. The welfare of animals, other than protected species, is not a matter for assessment by the Local Planning Authority.

Waste Management

5.5.2 If approved, a condition would be imposed to secure details of waste storage and collection at the site in the interests of protecting the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Conditions

5.5.3 The potential to impose conditions is discussed at a number of points above. Guidance dictates that a planning permission should be granted if matters of concern can be overcome through the imposition of conditions and, therefore, it is necessary and reasonable to give full consideration to the potential to impose conditions. To be imposed a condition must be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

5.5.4 It is noted that concerns have been raised by some parties as to whether conditions would be complied with on the grounds that there are previous examples of breaches of planning control at the site. The likelihood of compliance is not part of the assessment of whether or not a condition is reasonable to impose and the Local Planning Authority should make its decision based on the development that is proposed rather than any previous history of breaches. Any breaches of condition at this site or any other can be acted upon through the council’s planning enforcement function.

Community Facility

5.5.5 Letters of support address a number of wider benefits of the proposed use including the use of local shops and services by people connected with the facility, perceived health benefits for volunteers and the provision of an enterprise that encourages volunteering. These aspects of the proposed use are noted, but are not considered to outweigh the harm identified above.

Agenda Item no. 5 6. ANY RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

6.1 FUL/MAL/02/00484 - New stable block of 12 loose boxes, menage, change of use of barn from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and storage ancillary to equestrian use, and change of use of part of second existing building to a tack room. Approved 12.06.2002.

6.2 AGR/MAL/03/01061 - Erection of agricultural building. Prior Approval Required. 31.10.2003.

6.3 AGR/MAL/03/01186 - Prior approval for the siting, design and external appearance of an agricultural building. Refused. 05.01.2004.

6.4 AGR/MAL/04/00272 - Erection of an agricultural building. Prior Approval Required. 19.03.2004.

6.5 ENF/14/00181/CU - Enforcement Enquiry regarding current use. On 15th June 2015 the Council served Planning Enforcement Notices on land which includes, but is greater than, the application site. The alleged breach of planning control is stated as “Without planning permission the material change of use of the land from mixed agricultural and equestrian to mixed equestrian, retail and use as dog rescue.” An appeal against the enforcement notice was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on 08 July 2016. The terms of the notices require that dog rescue and retail uses at the site cease, a caravan is removed from the site and that materials are removed from the site. The landowner has been prosecuted on the grounds of failure to comply with the requirements of the enforcement notice.

6.6 FUL/MAL/15/00058 - Change of use to include dog rescue and equestrian -sui generis: Refused 11/02/16.

6.7 FUL/MAL/16/00118/FUL - Retrospective application for change of use of buildings to dog centre and equestrian. Refused. 14/04/16. An appeal in relation to this decision was not considered by the Planning Inspectorate as it was received after the defined deadline for an appeal to be submitted.

6.8 FUL/MAL/16/01131/FUL - Change of use of land and buildings to a dog rescue centre and equestrian including a detailed acoustic mitigation scheme, relocation of exercise pens, fencing and landscaping. Declined to Determine

6.9 FUL/MAL/17/00246/FUL - Change of use of land and building to a mixed use of a dog rescue centre and equestrian use which will result in 52 kennels and 11 stables and will include a detailed mitigation scheme, relocation of exercise areas, fencing and landscaping. Declined to Determine

Agenda Item no. 5 7. CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED

7.1 Representations received from Parish / Town Councils

Name of Parish / Town Comment Officer Response Council The Parish Council has reluctantly objected to the application making reference to the following matters:

The noise impact on neighbouring properties.

The inadequacy of the submissions in terms of their detail particularly relating to the mechanical ventilation, trade effluent, Latchingdon Parish waste disposal Comment noted Council. arrangements, the means of constructing the interior sound insulation and the number of dogs.

It is a concern that conditions would not be complied with.

The public support is acknowledged, but it is noted that it is not from local residents that have experienced noise from the site.

7.2 Statutory Consultees and Other Organisations

Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation It has been advised that, as per their response to application 16/00118/FUL, no objection is raised to ECC Highway Authority Noted. the proposal subject to a condition requiring details of a parking and turning area to be submitted,

Agenda Item no. 5 Name of Statutory Consultee / Other Comment Officer Response Organisation agreed and implemented.

7.3 Internal Consultees (summarised)

Name of Internal Comment Officer Response Consultee The comments of the Environmental Health Officers are noted and Environmental Health Objection on the grounds set out at 5.3.6 above. discussed within section 5.3

A response has been Countryside and Coast received stating that the Noted. Officer. Officer has no comment to make in relation to this application.

7.4 Representations received from Interested Parties (summarised)

7.4.1 20 letters of objection have been received from the following people which object to the application on the grounds listed below:

 Mr Andrew Snowdon, Burdons, Manor Road,  Mr & Mrs Graham, Arley Grange, Burnham Road, Latchingdon  Mark Mountain, West Villa, Rectory Lane, Latchingdon  Mr & Mrs Ashworth, Rosedale Farm, Rectory Lane, Latchingdon.  Stephen and Elena Walker, Samsons Bungalow, Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  Mr A Fittock and Miss D Barlow, Meadow View Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon  Christopher Smith, Red Lyons Farm Bungalow, Burnham Road, Latchindon  Cassie Collins, 47 Goldhanger Road, Heybridge  Nancy Crisp, 2 Fernlea Road, Burnham-on-Crouch  Victoria Scott, 18 Sudeley Gardens, Hockley  Pamela McMahon, Tiptoes, Lower Burnham Road, Latchingdon  83 - Mrs N. Gower, 175 Westbourne Grove, Westcliff-on-Sea  84 - Mr H. Gower, 175 Westbourne Grove, Westcliff-on-Sea  Adam Prescott, 43 Coombe Road,  Claire Ilesley, 9 Springhouse Road, Corringham  Amanda Willson, Treetops, Burnham Road, Latchingdon.

Objecting Comment Officer Response  The proposal has been refused previously and yet the site Noted and is still being used for the stated purposes. addressed where  Enforcement action should be taken. necessary. Agenda Item no. 5 Objecting Comment Officer Response  The use causes material harm as stated previously be the Local Planning Authority.  Despite some alterations at the site, there is still significant noise disturbance.  The proposal is a threat to the health of neighbouring residents.  Smells from the site are experienced.  Recent ‘dangerous dog’ incidents elsewhere in the country gives grounds for concerns in relation to there being many dogs at the site.  Dogs and horses escape the site and enter surrounding land.  The noise assessment used is not appropriate for this type of use.  Planning permission cannot lawfully be granted where there is established noise nuisance.  Granting planning permission would undermine the enforcement action being taken.  The background noise levels have not been measured accurately and the weather has not been accounted for.  The number of dogs and the number of kennels is not necessarily the same and has not been specified.  If more than the stated number of dogs are kept at the site, more will be outside and therefore the noise will increase.  Other examples are irrelevant to this proposal.  The building is not suitable for the proposed use as it allows noise to escape.  Relocating the exercise are will make the impact of noise worse.  Ancillary uses such as dog agility training will add to the harm.  Any conditions imposed would be duly disregarded.  The use detracts from property values  The proposal causes an unacceptable volume of traffic.  The site is inadequate for the proposed equine use.  The facility is not needed as there is an adequate facility in .  The proposal does not represent sustainable development.  The conditions within the building are poor/inadequate.  The facility is operating as a business rather than a charity.  Inadequate storage facilities are shown.  A reduction of kennels will make the facility unviable.  Dogs will not be available to the facility after Brexit.  New housing in the countryside is not acceptable.  The ‘homing’ and importing processes are not appropriate.  A veterinary facility will be proposed as a later phase.  Inadequate waste management details have been provided.

Agenda Item no. 5 Objecting Comment Officer Response

7.4.2 286 letters of support have been received from the following people who support the application on the grounds listed below:

 Joanna Hull, 21 Marsh Road, Burnham-on-Crouch  C. Cornell, 24 Long Meadow Drive,  Steph Ellis, 24 Coast Road,  Anita Sellick, 15 Heritage Way, Latchingdon  Sara Goodwin, 15 Brook Close, Great Totham  Ema Pekayilan, 150 Swan Lane, Wickford  Donna Nyarko, 23 Mendip Crescent, Westcliff  Gary Connell, 47 Church Leys,  Angela Warner, 4 Stammers Road,  Emma Horsley, 6 Burlescoombe Road, Thorpe Bay  Linda Clayden, 9 Lower North Street ,Hundon  Anthony Curtis, 26 Alder Way, Sudbury  Suzanne Lockington, Holkham Avenue,  Lynda Cartwright, Culverden, Crays Hill  Caroline Rhys-Lewis, 31 Victoria Road, Colchester  Deborah Lewis, 35 Second Avenue,  Claire Sumner, 100 Windermere Avenue, Hullbridge  Claire Ramshaw, 31 Thurstable Road, Tollesbury  Sue White, 16 Nelson Road, Basildon  Alana Lanigan, 19 Pertwee Drive, Chelmsford  Laurie Phillipson, 49 Glebe Road, Wickford  Eleanor Owen, Greenacres, Mundon Road, Maldon  Mrs Sarah Paterson, 40 Carlyle Gardens, Wickford  Julie Boyd, 7 Vine Drive,  Kate Langley, 75 North Street, Southminster  Amanda Roberts, 31 Hawkins Way, Braintree  Samantha Ward, 45 Louisa Avenue, Benfleet  Danielle Van Eeden, 5 Glendale Road, Burnham-on-Crouch  Kelly Mayer-Jones, 12 Siward Road,  Faye Higgs, 2 St Marys House, Burnham-on-Crouch  Barbara Berry, 99 Brackendale Avenue,  Luke Woodhouse, 6 Robletts Way, Colchester  Sally Woodmansee, 120A Sea Street, Herne Bay  Pearl Wright, 131 Little Lullaway, Basildon  Theresa White, 1 Lewes Way, Thundersley  Dianne Pegler, 33 Francis Close, Horndon-on-the-Hill  Deborah Butler, 36 Hornsland Road, Canvey Island  Mary Anne McGuiggan, 1 Cherry Tree Cottages, The Street,  Sarah Carney, 31 Kingston Chase, Heybridge  Sarah Dodd, 8 North End, Southminster  Mr & Mrs Standfast , 18 St Nicholas Road, Tillingham Agenda Item no. 5  Linda Day, 6 Homefield Way, Earls Colne  Rebecca Harkness, 46 Ronald West Court, Loughborough  Hilary Armstrong Watson, 17 Constable Close, Witham  Sarah Vernau, 32 St Nicholas Road, Tillingham  Debra Regan, 97 Diban Avenue, Hornchurch  Stacey Sparks, 44 Albert Road,  Stephen Andrews, 86 Mill Lane, Cressing  Angela Moran, 89C Hullbridge Road, South Woodham Ferrers  Charlotte Goudie, 468 Arterial Road, Southend  Katie Spencer, 1 Dryden Close, Maldon  Estelle Raeper, 7 Cavendish Close, Bury St Edmunds  Sally Frost, 76 Walnut Tree Way, Tiptree  Rebecca Woolston, 32 Highfield Rise, Althorne  Adam Douglasm, 1 Romsey Close, Hockley  Amy Douglas, 1 Romsey Close, Hockley  Sophie Warne, 4 Brinkworth Close, Hockley  Lucy Hutchins, 45 Mistley Path, Basildon  Lisa Bell, 45 Southcote Crescent, Basildon  Madison Belford-Reid, 38 Orchard Road, Maldon  Shane Dines, 38 Orchard Road, Maldon  Philip Haydon, 14 Scraley Road, Heybridge  Linda Curran, 25 Little Bentley, Basildon  David Springall, 49 Fitchs Crescent, Maldon  Avril Whitehead, 64 Richmond Avenue,  James Starr, 62 Coopers Avenue, Heybridge  Emma Frabcey, 33 Azalea Avenue, Wickford  Fiona Pratt, Bencott, Newport Avenue,  Sandra Wassell, 87 Bramley Way, Mayland  Vicki Richmond, 89 Temple Way, Heybridge  Claire Coutts, The Bothy, Hall Road,  Sophie Orr-Adams, 277 Mundon Road, Maldon  Paige Halfhide, 5 Steeple Road, Latchingdon  Alison Perry, 6 Steeple Road, Latchingdon  L. McCab, 4 Steeple Road, Latchingdon  Barbara Grimes, 8 Steeple Road, Latchingdon  J. Nel, The Flat, Rectory Lane, Latchingdon  Jennifer Correria, 10 Steeple Road, Latchingdon  A Braun, 9 Steeple Road, Latchingdon  Miriam Heppell, 17 Gaynesford, Basildon  Lucy Christie, 34 St Giles Crescent, Maldon  Graham Lea, 21 Dragon Close, Burnham-on-Crouch  Suzie Solly, 62 Whitegate Road, Southend  Christine North, 11 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  Miss Blainey, 20 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  M. Colin, 43 Burnham Road  Sally Lea, 21 Dragon Close, Burnham-on-Crouch  Kevin Lore, 24 Burnham Road, Latchingdon

Agenda Item no. 5  S. Yield, 20 Burnham Road, Latchingdon  S. Smith, 99 The Street, Latchingdon  B. James, 73 The Street, Latchingdon  Mary Bye, 15 The Bight, South Woodham Ferrers  Jade Huckfield, 50 Little Searles, PItsea  Alex Hammersley, 9 Brook Lane, Galleywood  Linda Alexander, 9 Brook Lane, Galleywood  Lauren Wadland, 24 Lappmark Road, Canvey Island  Margaret Ford, 45 Burnham Road  Helen Aiken, 44 Trenchard Crescent, Chelmsford  Justine Fehler, 42A Labworth Road, Canvey Island  Cathy Clarke, 11 Buchanan Way, Latchingdon  Luch Moloney, 20 Snoreham Gardens, Latchindon  Karen Freeman, 9 Sunnyside,  Anne Brown, 487 Beach Drive, St. Lawrence  Dee Potter, 30 Lime Walk, Chelmsford  Janet Carter, Rowan Lodge, Road,  Mr & Mrs Price, 1 Hornet Way, Burnham-on-Crouch  Ray Clifft, 3 Sparrows Herne, Basildon  Mr & Mrs Weaver, 104 Mapleford Sweep, Basildon  Kim Broughton, Grebe House, Fullbridge Quay, Maldon  Christine Allen, The Flat, Asheldham Hall, Hall Road, Asheldham  Jacqui Carter, 15 Pippins Road, Burnham-on-Crouch  Tara Fallows, 6 Carswell Gardens, Wickford  Kayley and Stephen Williamson, 20 Cecil Avenue, Hornchurch  Tracey Munday, 23 Merryfields Avenue, Hockley  Eve Winger, 11 Mowberry Gardens,  Naoko Brickell, 43 Church Road, Southend  Michelle Wright, 80 Bramley Way, Latchingdon  Julia Cuthbert, 190 Wantz Road, Maldon  Duncan Bliney, Woodstock, Main Road, Woodham Ferrers  Mr W and Mrs K South, 10 Brunswick Court, Upminster  Nina Newbury, 1 Burrswood Place,  Debbie Worrow, 26 The Street, Latchingdon  Debbie Goddard, 62 Bramfield Road,  Molly Barnes, 62 Bramfield Road, Purfleet  Joanne Stearn, 103 Goldhanger Road, Heybridge  Mrs Gavin, 4 Glenleigh Terrace, Maidstone  V. Pelham, 7 Redgate Close, Wickford  Carol Borroff, Endsleigh, Boxted  Dorothy Ramsey, 3 Sparrows Herne, Basildon  Pauline Kemp, 3 Jersey Gardens, Falkirk  Sylvia Hafez, 47 Plainsfield Braintree  Jacqueline Neary, 37 Mildmay Road, Burnham-on-Crouch  Jacquelyn May, 64 Maple Way, Burnham-on-Crouch  Paige Hornabrook, 12 Mallows Field,  Karen Chinery, 3 Lower Park Road, Brighlingsea

Agenda Item no. 5  Yasmin Wade, 101 Joyners Field, Harlow  Hayley Britton, 29 Trent Road, Chelmsford  Vicki Stansfield, 48 Meteor Road, Westcliff  Clare Sedgbeer, 520 Arterial Road, Leigh-on-Sea  Mike Brickell, 43 Church Road, Shoeburyness  Mrs J. Hopper, 3 Ramsey Chase  Amanda Percival, 37 King Street, Maldon  Glen Stafford, 13 Ash Grove, Burnham-on-Crouch  Amanda Blackhall, 4 Promenade Cottages, Maldon  Karen Stubbings, 2 Althorne Close, Basildon  Sarah Kench, 151 St Johns Road, Colchester  Jo O’Mahony, 84 Latimer Drive, Basildon  Amanda Cook, 2 Bramwoods, Chelmsford  Jason Moore, 100 Goldberry Mead, South Woodham Ferrers  Susan Dow, 7 Heritage Way  Margaret Williams, 1a Heritage Way, Latchingdon  Molly Griggs, 6 Heritage Way  Charlene Dunmore, 9 Hermitage Way  L. Race, 10 Heritage Way  Evelyn Day, 3 Meadow Way, Latchingdon  A Underhill, 18 Heritage Way  C. Jarvis, 23 Heritage Way, Latchingdon  Bradley Wright, 61 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  Heidi Fox, 51 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  Sally Moss, 25 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  Maxine Courtney, 3 Kingfisher Close, Heybridge  Roger Rabbiter, 4B Red Lyons Business Park  FR Wright, 8 Buchanon Way , Latchingdon  Imogen Day, 3 Meadow Way, Latchingdon  Carol Marden, Mayville, Burnham Road  M Johnston, 8 Granary Close, Latchingdon  Ray Deady, 7 Granary Close, Latchingdon  Nigel Smee, 47 The Street  Peter Ritzka, 21 Heritage Way  Chand Ritzka, 21 Heritage Way  DA Feeney, 42 The Street, Latchingdon  ME Feeney, 42 The Street, Latchingdon  James Curtwright, 47 The Street, Latchingdon  Philippe Morel, Tides Reach, Ferry Road,  Maya Courtney, 27 Canon Mead, South Woodham Ferrers  Nina Dighton, 47 The Street, Latchingdon  M. Rogers, 21 Ramsey Chase  Jodie Robinson, 47 The Street, Latchingdon  Christine Pederson, 12 Heritage Way, Latchingdon  Lee Holden, 59 The Street, Latchingdon  Lisa Megemis, Oldfield Lodge Farm, Burnham Road, Latchingdon  D. Pinder, 11 Granary Close, Latchingdon

Agenda Item no. 5  Helen Tutt, 5 Snoreham Gardens, Latchingdon  Clair Heady, Ashwell Cottage, The Street, Latchingdon  Mark Smith, 13 The Street, Latchingdon  L. Robson, 23 The Street  JL Tilbrook, 27 The Street  Patrick Day, 18 The Street, Latchingdon  Bharti Devji, 41 The Street, Latchingdon  Judith Hood, 9 Limbourne Drive, Heybridge  Kim Holden, 59 The Steet, Latchingdon  Holly Syder, 61 The Street, Latchingdon  M Snowdon, 63 The Street, Latchingdon  Kerry Bilington, The Old Chaple, The Street, Latchingdon  Daniel Hunt, 75 Briarwood, The Street, Latchingdon  Jill Newman, 89 The Street, Latchingdon  Megen Simcock, 4 Burnham Road, Latchingdon  EJ Munday, The Willow, 10 Burnham Road, Latchingdon  Edna Sibley, 8 Burnham Road, Latchingdon  Hannah Frost, 5 Rosie Lily Cottage, Latchingdon  Amy Thornton, 4 Rosie Lily Cottages, Latchingdon  Kitty Perryman, 2 Crouch Vale Court, Latchingdon  Tony Green, 1 Crouch Vale Court, Latchingdon  D. May, 5 Snereham Gardens, Latchingdon  Tony Cornell, 20 Springfield Cottages, Heybridge  Tina Niner, 20 Granary Close, Latchingdon  Liam Day, 14 The Street, Latchingdon.  Stephen Colderwood, The Annex, Marsh Farm Cottage, Lower Burnham Road, Latchingdon  Joan Mantell, 7 Medows Way, Latchingdon  B. Harkett, 15 Ludgrove, Latchingdon  M. Dennis, 15 Ludgrove, Latchingdon  Dadds, 24 Meadow Way, Latchingdon  Joanna Hopper, 3 Ramsey Chase, Latchingdon  David McMeowiv, 15 The Street, Latchingdon  Joseph Chennels, 21 The Street, Latchingdon  Warren Derham, 31 The Street, Latchingdon  Simon Furza, 29 The Street, Latchingdon  M. Duke, 10 The Street, Latchingdon  Dino Khan, Red Lyon Busincess Centre  Beverly Hills International Limited, Red Lyon Busincess Centre  Pitstop Tyres, Red Lyon Busincess Centre  V. Bridge, 5 Lawlige Road, Latchingdon  S Mymms, 20 Heritage Way, Latchingdon  Darren Wicks, 10A Steeple Road, Latchingdon,  L Wight, 47 Burnham Road, Latchingdon  Graham Moore, 14 Heritage Way, Latchingdon  Anita Wilkin, Unit 2 Red Lion Business Centre  Dick Ball, 7 Ludgrove, Latchingdon

Agenda Item no. 5  Susan Bence, 29 Lawlinge Road, LAtchingdon  Kristie Knight, Willow Brook, 8 The Street, Latchingdon  Valentine Rutkin, Red Lyons Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingon.  Mr Palmer, Red Lyons Lodge, Burnham Road, Latchingon.  Mrs D A Wright, 61 Lawlinge Road, Latchingdon  Mr J. Hopper, 3 Ramsey Chase, Latchingdon  Joshua Day, 3 Meadow Way, Latchingdon  Mrs Dawn Skeels, 49 Dumont Avenue, , Clacton, CO168JP  Anita Wilkin, 109 Maldon Rd CM0 8DD and Red Lions Business Centre, Burnham Rd, Latchingdon  Ms Elaine Todd, 40 Evergreen Drive, Colchester CO4 0HU  Karen Spong, 64 Connaught Gardens, Braintree, Essex, CM7 9LZ  Yvonne, 9 Crouch Park, Pooles lane, Hullbridge, Hockley, Essex SS5 6PX  Tracy Garrad, 37 cross cottage, Boxted, CO4 5SR  Hazel Elles, 138 Powers Hall End, Witham, Essex, CM81LS  Mr D P Bilney, Woodstock, Main Road, Woodham Ferrers, Chelmsford, Essex, CM3 8RN  Sheena Wight, 23, Bernard Road, Sawbridgeworth,CM21 9DY  Mrs Corrie, 14 Emanuel Road, Langdon Hills, Basildon, Essex Ss16 6EX  Sharon & John Reynolds, 31 Eastcheap, Rayleigh, Essex, SS6 9JY  Louise Strowlger, 72 Woodside avenue, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 4NY  Stevie Strowlger, 72 Woodside avenue, Benfleet, Essex, SS7 4NY  Ann Macdonald,38 Wulvesford,Witham,Essex,CM8 1NL  Lesley Morgan, 18 Meadway River,Dover, Kent, CT17 0PS  Kelly Phillipson, 49 Glebe road, Wickford, Essex, SS11 8ET  Caroline Linton, 9 James Carter Road, Colchester, Essex, CO3 9XA  Miss Sylvia Ridge, 7 Hornbeam Close, , Epping, CM16 7JT.  Jonathon Kirby, 2 the Poplars, Southminster, Essex, CM0 7FL  Carol Grieve, 53 Milton Avenue, Barnet, Herts EN5 2EY  Pat Stafford, 18 Kingston Close, Romford, RM6 5QB  Krystal Amato, 76 Grifon Road, Chafford Hundred, Grays, Essex, RM16 6RJ  Fiona Hurd, Myrtle Cottage, Road, Kelvedon, Essex, CO5 9NU  Richard Mark Stylianou-Steed, Carrer Cervantes 11, Villalonga 46720, Spain  Mrs Elven, 11 Rokewood Place, Stanningfield, Bury St Edmunds, IP29 4RF  Mrs G Lewis-Cox, 38 Leigh Park Road, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 2DU  Debi Morrison, 2 Maydene, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex, CM3 5ND  Pauline Stackpoole, 3 Glenmere, Vange, Basildon, Essex SS164QS  Val Reeve, Hornfield, Franklin Road, North Fambridge, Essex CM3 6NF  Mr & Mrs Gray, 4 Althorne Close, Basildon, SS13 1QW  Karen Dennis, 28 Silver Leys, Bentley, Ipswich, Suffolk, IP9 2BS  Jane Bass, 6, Campion Road, Colchester, Essex CO2 7RT  Mrs L J Shea, 52 Waveney Road, Bungay, Suffolk, NR35 1LJ  Kat Lovey, 3 Warren Drive, Basildon, Essex, SS14 1GE  Rebekah Edwards, 103 Road, Colchester, Essex, CO6 1LH  Miss S Holmes, 25 St Johns Road, Great Wakering, Essex SS3 0AL  Bridie James, 53 Tawneys Ride, Bures, Suffolk, CO8 5DB  Yvonne Arnold, 34 Sussex Way, , CM12 0FA

Agenda Item no. 5  Julie Stevens, 53 Pelly Avenue, Witham, Essex CM8 1JJ  Helen Batchelor,11 Wakelin Chase, , Essex, CM4 9HH  Lorraine Colombi, 13 Reed Walk, Colchester, Essex, CO1 1QE  James Marshall, 80 Bramley Way, Maryland, CM3 6ET  Mrs Julie Mudd, 104 Plumleys, Pitsea, SS13 1NG

Supporting Comment Officer Response

 No noise from the site is experienced within nearby properties.  Any noise that is heard when the wind blows in the wrong direction is not intrusive.  The traffic caused by the use has not been a problem.  The use rescues abandoned dogs and provides good accommodation.  The use creates employment and encourages people to use local shops and facilities.  The use works with the Duke of Edinburgh Scheme.  The applicant is a charity.  The proposal will be an improvement to the site.  The proposal has been prepared by professionals.  The proposal is viable.  DEFRA and RSPCA support the proposal.  The majority of Latchingdon residents support the application.  The countryside is the best place for a dog rescue centre. Noted and  The management plan would mitigate any negative addressed where impacts necessary.  The efforts of the applicant and the volunteers should be acknowleged and rewarded.  Noise reducing fences have been installed  The re-location of facilities within the site will address any concerns.  Working with dogs is therapeutic for children with disabilities.  Walking dogs is of benefit to mental health.  Some neighbours have previous admitted to be ‘hard of hearing’ and therefore will not be affected.  One neighbour has recently bought their property in full knowledge of the presence of the dog rescue.  Maldon District Council should be proud of this facility and should work with the facility.  The horses at the site are well catered for.  The operation has enabled a person to overcome her fear of dogs.  Noise should be expected and accepted.

Agenda Item no. 5  The operation avoids the need for the Council to put down dogs.  The grounds of objection are inaccurate/untrue  Other similar facilities have been approved by the Council within the vicinity of the site.

8. PROPOSED REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1 The application relates to the use of the land for equestrian purposes and also the continued use of the land as a dog rescue centre with building operations and management regimes proposed to mitigate noise arising from the dog rescue use. From the information provided, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the noise arising from use would be adequately mitigated and, therefore, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed use would not cause significant and unacceptable harm to the amenities and quality of life of neighbouring residents. Taking a precautionary stance, the proposal is, therefore, deemed to be unacceptable and contrary to policies S1, D1 and D2 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

Agenda Item no. 5