Agenda item

To determine the application.

There was a 15-minute adjournment so that members could consider information that had been tabled.

 

Nick Harding presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated. He advised that to assist with any questions that members may have there are two Environmental Health colleagues and Andy Cole, the Council’s Consultant, from Caen Environmental Consulting present.

 

Andy Cole gave a presentation to summarise his findings and recommendations. Mr Cole stated that he is a Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner and holds the membership of the Institute of Acoustics and has significant experience in the regulation and assessment of environmental noise, predominantly in a local authority context. He stated that he was asked to review the Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) and provide a written response to the Council with his observations and any recommendations.

 

Mr Cole stated that his observations initially were that the NIA had been undertaken by people who know what they are talking about and he was satisfied it was in accordance with all the right policies and guidance, noting that the initial findings for the assessment identified, quite rightly, that there could have been a significant noise impact and, therefore, that would then have been not acceptable in planning terms. He advised the applicant redesigned the project, with the redesign including a whole range of mitigation measures including retaining the current kennel as an acoustic barrier for non-noisy activities only, upgrading sound insultation of the proposed kennels, mechanical ventilation with doors/windows kept closed, a new acoustic barrier, limiting the amount of dogs to 120, acoustic screening for exercising and the toilet area and identifying best practice measures to be used in Noise Management Plan (NMP), which he assessed and was satisfied they were all the things you would expect that would represent best practice.

 

Mr Cole advised that his initial findings were that if the proposals in the NIA regarding the mitigation measures were implemented in full the project should be acceptable but he was also aware of the wider context around the apparent levels of community sensitivity and that there have been historic noise complaints regarding the existing kennels so he wanted to consider this further. He noticed that the historic complaints, although they have not resulted in a statutory noise nuisance being proven, relate to use of the existing kennels and the proposed development under consideration will result in those kennels not being used for kennelling, with the buildings remaining in place acting as an acoustic barrier and could be utilised for non-noisy activities.

 

Mr Cole stated that he also noticed that it is not a boarding type kennel, which is relevant as animal boarding kennels have a greater potential for noise largely down to the dogs not being as settled as they would be in kennels such as the one under consideration today. He advised that the NIA predicted that in a worst case scenario, with mitigation in place, that there would be an overall general reduction in noise impact and improved noise environment for the community and over the evening and nighttime it is predicted there would be a significant reduction which should lead to better quality sleep for residents and whilst he is aware of the slight increase predicted during the day, an increase of just over 3 dBA, there is a need to understand that up to 3 dB is not perceptible to the human ear so the increase being predicted could potentially not be perceptible.

 

Mr Cole stated that he came to the conclusion that the proposal was acceptable in planning terms, he could not find any justifiable reasons for refusing the application on the grounds of amenity or noise but he did feel that the use of carefully worded conditions would be necessary and justifiable to ensure robust implementation of mitigation and as high a level of environmental protection as possible is achieved for the local community. He expressed the view that the NMP, a tool that is often used in noise control and identifies the practical things that will be undertaken in relation to an activity on a day to day basis to make sure that noise is being controlled tightly, is key to ensure day to day measures are implemented to minimise noise impacts, daytime noise is kept to an absolute minimum and accountability for implementation is absolutely clear.

 

Mr Cole stated that his recommendation to Council was that a carefully worded planning condition secures implementation of all proposed mitigation measures, provides officers opportunity to review details as the project progresses before the kennels are permitted to operate and specifies day to day operational measures which will be implemented.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Susan Wallwork, a Wisbech Town Councillor. Councillor Wallwork stated that although this proposal was previously approved by Wisbech Town Council she feels confident that if the matter came to the current Planning Committee it would fully oppose it now knowing what it knows. She expressed the view that this statement is supported by the fact that there is a current Planning Committee member in attendance at the meeting today who is supporting the residents but has also raised it with the committee several times since knowing that the impact on the residents would be quite profound.

 

Councillor Wallwork believes the planning application should be refused today because it goes against LP2 and LP16 of the Local Plan, with LP2 relating to health and wellbeing and it clearly states that development proposals should positively contribute to create a healthy, safe and equitable living environment, which, in her view, this proposal does not do and members will hear from residents about the local impact that 20-40 dogs have on their wellbeing, which will include broken sleep, lots of issues and not being able to enjoy their own property and this application proposes over 100 dogs. She referred to the reports and comments from Environmental Health which acknowledge that there are already issues, the fact that they are reserving taking action in the future and suggesting carefully worded conditions so she feels they know there is going to be issues and they are not going to be resolved unless this application is refused.

 

Councillor Wallwork referred to the report stating that mitigation of sound proofing within the kennels and the new kennels being a few extra yards across from the boundary line now, however, greyhounds or any dogs will require feeding and exercise, if the sound proofing was perfect in the building, which, in her view, it would not be, over 100 dogs would still need to be exercised every day and the additional distances negligible when you take into account this is flat Fenland ground, sound carries over large areas and there is nothing to block it. She stated that the RSPCA recommends that dogs get 30 minutes of exercise twice a day, that is just for pets, and training greyhounds will require substantially more and as they cannot take dogs out into the evening this will mean that during the daytime window there will be a constant stream of dogs being exercised, which will mean constant unsound proofed barking impacting on neighbours.

 

Councillor Wallwork expressed the opinion that the proposal goes against LP16, it clearly states that proposals should not adversely impact on the amenities of neighbouring users such as noise, light pollution and loss of privacy and she feels it will be clearly evidenced that there are lots of issues and life destructing problems for the neighbours at the moment. She stated that neighbours are going to say that they have had to make hotel stays to get a good night’s sleep, they have had to stop their family visiting, they have been absolutely broken with their mental health and this needs to be severely taken into consideration.

 

Councillor Wallwork expressed the view that professionals stating that measures need to be implemented in full and that carefully worded conditions are required to make it an acceptable level of destruction is really easy to say when it is not them being destructed and it is not their sleep being impacted. She feels taking into account all the points she has raised she would propose that this application should be refused.

 

Members asked questions to Councillor Wallwork as follows:

·        Councillor Benney asked if she would buy a house next door to this development? Councillor Wallwork responded that she would not and having met with several of the residents they are generally broken, having less than 40 dogs in the environment now is causing all these issues and not being able to have a good night’s sleep can break a person’s mental health, which is her area of expertise.   

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Steve Tierney, a District Councillor. Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that this Council and most specifically its Environmental Health department have let the residents of Redmoor Lane down but in officer’s defence they are dealing with a clunky, bureaucratic system and there are not the enforcement powers that the Council might like. He stated that he is going to ask that this application is refused based on the evidence he has seen and heard but he would have expected the Council to have served enforcement notices on the existing 20-40 dog kennels and the applicant not be in a position to raise the number of dogs by a 100 or more.

 

Councillor Tierney expressed the view that since 2022 the Council has been in receipt of complaints about noise from the existing much smaller kennels and although the Environmental Health Officer initially recognised these issues there was then a strange, and to his mind inexplicable, about face and on this planning application Environmental Health have chosen not to raise an objection, which he believes is wrong and he will try to demonstrate why. He feels that residents have a right not to face constant disturbance from excessive noise, they have a right to enjoy their homes, sleep soundly at night, not to be woken at the crack of dawn every day, they have a right to live their lives without being driven to the edge of sanity by massive noise intrusions and even as it currently stands the residents nearest to the location are being driven to misery by the noise.

 

Councillor Tierney expressed the opinion that the new application pays lip service to some noise mitigation and a tiny bit more distance but no amount of noise mitigation can stop 140 dogs needing exercise, likely constantly throughout the day and in the countryside sound carries a long way, asking members to imagine 140 barking dogs in dribs and drabs over the course of the day. He stated that the Goughs have been collecting audio visual recordings of the issue, they are all timed and date stamped, with the barking often starting as early as 4am and can be intermittent throughout the day and late into the evening.

 

Councillor Tierney stated that there are hundreds of these recordings going back many months and as recently as last week and he has been forwarding these files to senior officers, local councillors and the Leader of the Council all of whom are in safe receipt of them but with limited time committee cannot be expected to listen to hours and hours of sound files so he has made a very short compilation to give committee a tiny taste of what the Goughs put up with all the time with only the current small number of dogs, which is what the Council’s Environmental Health department think is not enough of an issue to object to and he thinks the sounds speak for themselves and if committee think this is bad bear in mind how vastly worse it will be with 120 or so dogs. He played the sound recording, which he stated occurs every morning, every evening and virtually every day and questioned that this is not enough of a noise to constitute a nuisance, which he feels is rubbish and requested the application be refused.

 

Members asked questions of Councillor Tierney as follows:

·        Councillor Marks asked what distance in metres was that recorded away from the application site? Councillor Tierney responded that this was from the Goughs house but he has not measured it but the question could be asked of the Goughs when they speak.

·        Councillor Gerstner asked how this was recorded, on what device? Councillor Tierney responded that it was recorded by the Goughs, they have a mixture of devices such as CCTV camera and recordings on their phones and the new plans put the kennels a little further away but some dogs have been kept there since it was built he believes and it has made little difference.

·        Councillor Benney asked if Councillor Tierney would buy a house next door to this development? Councillor Tierney responded that he would not want to buy a house next door to this development and that suggests to him in order to sell houses in this area it would have to be sold under the market value, which, in his opinion, is part of why this is being done.

·        Councillor Mrs French asked Councillor Tierney to elaborate on what he has just said. Councillor Tierney responded that if a lot of noise and harassment was on the edge of a property it would make it hard to sell and then it would probably have to be sold below the market value if the residents no longer wanted to stay and if you were looking to buy up additional properties that would be a way to make them cheaper.

 

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Kathleen Gough, Andrew Gough, Zena Livesey, Colin Smith and George Capon, objectors to the proposal. Mrs Gough expressed her nervousness about talking today as they have been physically threatened during the course of last 18 months and there are crime reference numbers. She stated that they moved to Redmoor Lane 6 years ago and before that they lived next door to a greyhound kennels at their previous property for 28 years and never once submitted a complaint.

 

Mrs Gough expressed the view that their first 4 years were wonderful and they met some lovely neighbours who are now their friends but in March 2022 the property was sold and managers moved in and they feel like they are living in hell. She stated they have barking, whining and howling in the early hours of the morning and throughout the day, there are constant bonfires burning commercial waste, approximately 1 a week, and, in her opinion, they have no quality of life anymore and the only time they get any sleep is when they sleep away from their home.

 

Mrs Gough stated that they are extremely family orientated, having 4 children and 4 grandchildren, and she cannot have her grandchildren to sleep at her house anymore and she does not feel safe in her home, they cannot use their garden and cannot enjoy the privacy of their home. She stated that she has been begging Environmental Health for 18 months for help on this, they are physically and mentally exhausted and cannot take anymore, and Environmental Health will not help them and she is asking the committee for help as this is what is happening now let alone what will happen if planning is passed and the number of dogs is quadrupled.

 

Mrs Gough explained that the new development is going to be between 80 and 90 feet from their home and it will be devasting if this planning goes ahead and they just want to live in their home, have their grandchildren sleep and live their lives.

 

Mr Gough stated that he lives next door to the kennels at No.12, he cannot describe how he feels, angry does not describe it and he is far past that. He advised that he goes to bed at midnight and wakes up at 2am with the dogs barking, he is unable to get back to sleep because he is agitated and he is unable to sit in the lounge with the windows open to get fresh air because of the bonfires, which is more than once a week and is more like 2-3 times per week.

 

Mr Gough stated that he has a workshop at the back of his property where he tries to work on his classic car and he is unable to go out there because of the bonfires, which fills the workshop full of smoke which chokes him and makes his eyes stream. He expressed the view that he is out there trying to concentrate but he cannot as the dogs bark, howl and whine and it is like someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard, with the dogs getting inside your head and inside you are screaming shut up, with it really affecting him.

 

Mr Gough stated that his wife gets really stressed, which affects and exacerbates her medical condition and he is stressed also, is now pre-diabetes and one step away from full diabetes which is all brought on by stress of these dogs. He expressed the opinion that the sound proofing of the kennels that has been stated is being put up the wall to insulate them does not work and will never work with the amount of dogs proposed, with dogs being in and out of the kennels already for the last 2-3 weeks and it echoes with 1 dog sounding like 4 so what will it be like with 100.

 

Mrs Livesey stated that she lives with her family at No.7 moving into their home in July 2021 falling in love with it straight away as it met the needs of her family and in particular her autistic son, who has many needs with sound being a massive trigger for him and can lead to self-harming, which is highly distressing for him but also for the family to watch. She added that they cannot go out into the garden for long periods of time as the dogs start barking and her son starts getting distressed.

 

Mrs Livesey advised that her neighbour has the same concerns as her mum has dementia, has a full-time carer and has to be sedated if she starts hearing the dogs barking. She expressed the view that at the beginning of 2022 they discovered what Mr Barclay’s plans were and if you read his article it is 3 areas in that site so the noise is going to be massive, with the plans for 100 dogs meaning there will be a huge increase in noise levels compared to what is there already.

 

Mrs Livesey acknowledged that Mr Barclay will take steps to ensure sound proofing but every time that door opens sound will travel and every time those 100 dogs are moved outside in groups the proofing will not be effective, the outside area will not be able to be sound proofed as sound travels, you cannot stop it and the constant stream of movement will be 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, with the legal requirement set out by the GBGB.

 

Mrs Livesey stated that she really feels for Mr and Mrs Gough, it is terrible that they are put in this situation and asked the committee to please reject the plan as her family, friends and the community have a right to peace and quiet and to be able to enjoy their homes and gardens without excessive disturbance. She feels that if Mr Barclay’s plan goes ahead their rights will be at the cost of a person who does not contribute to their community, does not live in the town or even the county.

 

Mr Smith stated that he lives at 7B Redmoor Lane, opposite the site and he understands that planning can be complex and there needs to be balanced judgements but, in his view, the benefits to this lane massively outweighs Mr Barclay’s claim of 7 jobs. He expressed the opinion that if planning is refused, he will relocate to a more suitable location and those 7 jobs will still be created somewhere else.

 

Mr Smith stated that he measured using Google Earth the distance from his kitchen to the kennels, which is over 520 feet and still at 3am when he gets up he can hear the dogs barking and they bark for 30 to 40 minutes, which is not gentle and even in his home, even in the study on the other side of his home he can hear the dogs barking and it is just not at night. He expressed the view that the Environmental Health Officer is concentrating on noise within the kennels but asked about the noise outside the kennels, with the noise being made now by 30-35 dogs and the Environmental Health Officer states that noise will slightly increase but questioned how by quadrupling the number of dogs would noise be slightly increased during the day.

 

Mr Smith feels each day a group of dogs will be taken outside to exercise and train, each group will bark excitedly as they get their chance to run and play, after a while they will be taken inside and a new batch will come out and they too will be excited, bark and come out and play, which will be constantly repeated. He concluded that Mr and Mrs Gough are not exaggerating about the noise.

 

Mr Capon stated that he lives at No.17, 200 metres from No.10 and whilst he does have hearing aids he hears the dogs from his property even when he is not actually wearing them. He added that family and friends visiting tell him they are disturbed by the volume and random nature of occurrence day and night, like him they struggle to believe this application should even be considered in such a small community.

 

Mr Capon expressed the view that the cavalier attitude of the applicant towards neighbours, noise levels, the environment, the community and planning beggars’ belief as if these considerations only apply to other people. He stated that he should have a reasonable expectation of a good quality of life, subsequent events have proved this is not possible and this application is detrimental to that and will adversely dominate the community and should not, in his opinion, be permitted.

 

Members asked questions of the objectors as follows:

·        Councillor Connor asked Mrs Gough to elaborate on how she has been threatened? Mrs Gough responded physically, threatening to come round more than once.

·        Councillor Connor asked Mr Gough, in relation to the bonfires, has he contacted Environmental Health and if he has what has been their reply? Mr Gough responded that Environmental Health have been contacted on several occasions complaining about the bonfires and he has e-mailed them several times and he has been told it is not their department. He stated that Environmental Health did write to Mr Barclay on one occasion that he knows of and the response was that it was not commercial waste being burnt but residential but, in his view, the pictures that they have provided clearly show it is commercial, with it being used dog bedding and all the packaging, and they are allowed to get away with it. Mr Gough stated that it fills his house and his garden with smoke and the fumes go into his workshop where he tries to go for some respite to settle his mind and help his sanity and then the dogs start barking and the smoke stings his eyes and chokes him.

·        Councillor Marks referred to the sound recording played by Councillor Tierney and asked for the rough distance when this was recorded? Mr Gough responded that some of the recordings are from their living room window and the distance is scaled on the plan, with his workshop being 29 feet long and he has scaled it as approximately 80 feet to the new building from their living room window. Mrs Gough stated that the recording was the noise they hear from the living room with the window open. Councillor Marks queried whether this was from the existing kennels? Mr Gough responded that the existing kennels are only about 50 feet from the living room windows.

·        Councillor Marks stated that it has been mentioned Mr and Mrs Gough have lived at their property for 4 years with no problems previously and asked if it was run as a kennels previously, exactly the same with greyhounds? Mr Gough responded that it was, when they moved in they were told it was a kennels next door and were told that the elderly couple that lived there only had 5-6 dogs, which they did as they were semi-retired, so they brought the property and had no problems with them at all and used to visit them. Mrs Gough added that prior to them moving to this property they did live next door to a greyhound kennels.

 

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that having listened to the residents and also the Wisbech Councillors, she is confused and surprised to hear the number of complaints that have been submitted to the Environmental Health Team and nothing has been undertaken. She asked for an explanation. Nick Harding responded that this is irrelevant to the consideration of the planning application before the committee, this is a separate matter entirely and the investigation and actions that Environmental Health may or may not take in respect of the current set up is not relevant to the current application before committee. He stated that this application is for a new set of kennels which will replace the existing facility and a noise assessment has been undertaken compared against the current situation. Councillor Connor responded that he understands this but if the application gets planning permission and the applicant still carries on allegedly burning commercial waste it is still going to have an adverse effect on the residents’ health and wellbeing and he feels on this application he needs an answer.

·       Carol Pilson, Corporate Director with responsibility for Environmental Health, referred to Councillor Mrs French’s question and stated that she has to be careful about the amount of detail that she can go into due to the number of parties involved and there is only a set amount of things they are able to disclose in public. She confirmed that there has been a number of investigations carried out by the Environmental Health Team in relation to noise nuisance and presently there has not been any statutory nuisance or noise abatement notices served. Carol Pilson stated that there is an on-going investigation in relation to the current set up and as the Head of Planning has confirmed in terms of what members are being asked to consider today it is in relation to the new set up, which members had the opportunity of viewing as part of the introductory slides. She expressed the opinion that members need to balance as part of this application is whether the noise assessment that has been provided by the applicant, that Andy Cole as an external consultant who was commissioned by the Council to independently assess, alleviates any concerns members may have regarding the noise environment including representations the committee heard today from members of the public and from councillors. Councillor Mrs French responded that this does not really answer her question. Councillor Connor suggested that if Councillor Mrs French has any more concerns about this she has a meeting with Environmental Health at a later date. Councillor Mrs French made the point that the application is in front of committee today, there is information from the Environmental Officer and it should be discussed here. Nick Harding stated that it is appropriate to ask technical questions of the Environmental Health Officers or Mr Cole in relation to the noise assessment but it is not relevant to talk about how Environmental Health are dealing with the current noise complaints. Councillor Mrs French stated she is not asking for that she wants information that is on public record.

·       Councillor Mrs French asked how many dogs are actually on site now? She referred to Mr Cole’s assessment of the noise and asked how many dogs were on site when he undertook the assessment? Mr Cole responded that he has not undertaken the noise assessment, the applicant commissioned an acoustic consultant to undertake the assessment and he reviewed that on behalf of the Council and his understanding is that the proposal for the new kennels which are separate to the existing is for 120 dogs. Councillor Mrs French thanked Mr Cole for the information but it does not answer the question she wants to know how many dogs are on site now and when the assessment was undertaken? Mr Cole responded that he wants to be as helpful as he can but in terms of any assessment that has been undertaken, confusion is coming from two issues in that there is the planning application in consideration for which there is a Noise Impact Assessment which talks about the potential noise if the development goes ahead and then there is the current situation in a different building with existing dogs, which he understands was subject to an investigation by Fenland officers in terms of noise nuisance so he is not quite sure specifically in relation to those two issues where that question needs to be answered.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to the comments of the Environmental Health Officers on 8 September 2022 that Environmental Health are currently investigating a noise complaint about barking dogs at the kennels and so far this does not amount to statutory nuisance but on the grounds that the increased level of barking is likely to cause an unreasonable loss of amenity to neighbours. She further pointed out that on 10 August 2023 please delete my previous e-mail on this and accept this version as official, so a year ago they were quite happy to object to this proposal, so a noise assessment has been undertaken, it is not known how many dogs were on the premises when the assessment was undertaken but the proposal is for 120 and she still wants an answer as to how many dogs were on the premises at the time of the noise assessment. Mr Cole questioned whether it was when the noise assessment was undertaken or when Fenland’s nuisance investigation was undertaken? Councillor Mrs French reiterated that when the noise assessment was undertaken how many dogs were on site? Mr Cole responded that when he reviewed the noise impact assessment he was satisfied that it was undertaken in accordance with technical guidance and properly by competent people, part of that assessment will be ensuring that any measurements that were taken were representative and he was satisfied that the readings were representative of the situation. He stated that he cannot remember how many dogs were on site but suspect this will be in the report but members can be reassured of his satisfaction that it was representative. Councillor Mrs French stated that she is glad that Mr Cole is satisfied as she is not. Nick Harding stated that he has had a quick look through the submitted applicant’s Noise Impact Assessment and it refers to the capacity of the existing facility being 26 dogs but he has not been able to see whether or not a count of dogs on site was undertaken on the days on which the existing noise readings were taken.

·       Nick Harding stated that Mr Cole may wish to come in as the way that it works is that a reading is taken of existing noise then this is modelled to what the noise will be from a different noise source taking into consideration the development that is proposed. Mr Cole stated this is correct, it is a case of making an assessment of the current situation which is then modelled to a predicted level and he feels the question was a reasonable one as he too was going through the Noise Impact Assessment and he cannot see the number. Annabel Tighe, Head of Environmental Health, stated that the current investigations have identified that there are likely to be in the region of 36 dogs on site, but this changes day to day. 

·       Councillor Marks asked Mr Cole that on his slides it said with the windows and doors closed so does this mean that the noise reading was taken with the animals inside and not running around the field? Mr Cole responded that the reference to the windows and doors being closed was one of the proposed mitigation measures for the new kennels, where it is being proposed that the windows remain closed and that mechanical ventilation systems will be put in place. Councillor Marks made the point that there is a need to get in and out of the kennels, which means the doors open, dogs start barking because someone is walking in and out so that would be more of a disturbance and asked if he agreed? Mr Cole stated that he does agree, however, this leads to the importance of the Noise Management Plan, which could specify things like the use of a lobby door to minimise any breakout when the doors are open.

·       Councillor Marks asked how dogs read a Noise Management Plan as they tend to bark when they want to bark whether they are told not to so how are dogs going to be managed in this way, are they going to be gagged between the hours of 6pm to 6am. He made the point that noise is a major issue, especially for the neighbours, and he does not know how it can be said barking dogs can be controlled by a Management Plan. Mr Cole responded that the Noise Management Plan is identifying practical operational measures that will be adopted on site to minimise the likelihood of the dogs starting to bark. He stated there are a whole range of known and accepted measures that can be implemented, such as use of a lobby door, planning an exercise regime so there are only small groups of dogs, avoiding the exposure to sunlight to avoid waking the dogs up, managing the interaction with visitors, removing any additional stimuli, use of plastic feeding bowls instead of metal ones, so there is a whole range of practical measures that he would expect to see in a Noise Management Plan to reduce the likelihood of dogs barking.

·       Councillor Gerstner thanked Mr Cole for clarifying that he did not carry out the Noise Impact Assessment and stated that he was previously an electronics engineer and is very adverse to sound and, in his view, there is a vast difference between sound and noise. He made the point that there are Environmental Health Officers at the meeting who are more than capable of distinguishing between sound, noise and harmonics and in the presentation it was stated that the maximum sound level could reach 69dBA and in industrial units the advice is to wear ear muffs for any length of time if you are subjected to sound or noise of 70dB and asked if he was correct in this? Mr Cole responded that he does not have the Noise at Work Regulations figures to hand but it is right that there are levels that the Noise of Work Regulations assess as a noisy impact on employees. He stated it is important to understand that in acoustics there are a range of different types of noise and types of assessments and what is being dealt with here is not a situation where noise at work is being looked at, it is assessment of noise impact to be able to assess suitability for planning permission which is a different set of guidance.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that having not seen the Noise Impact Assessment, he is concerned about this as he would not be able to make an informed decision on that assessment as he does not know at what distance the assessment was carried out, what period of time it was undertaken, the number of dogs that were resident at the time, he has not seen the calibration figures for the noise assessment equipment and he has not seen the noise assessment calibration certificates so he is flagging these issues up as the assessment was carried out on another person’s figures, whilst he is not denying or questioning those figures but any noise that goes above 65 to 70 dB in an industrial setting people are advised to wear ear muffs and this proposal is talking about a substantial amount of source of noise and he has serious concerns with not having seen the Noise Impact Assessment. Nick Harding stated that the committee report does include a link to the public case file connected with this application and the document is there to be read by members of the public and members of the Planning Committee. He advised that the Council does not undertake its own noise assessment or ecology surveys or traffic counts and modelling and there has to be reasonable faith in technical reports submitted by the applicant, with these documents being prepared by qualified professionals and their credentials are on the reports so officers have to believe they are true and proper. Councillor Connor thanked Councillor Gerstner for bringing his expert opinion to the committee, although he had not got the required information to hand.

·       Councillor Benney asked for clarification that Mr Cole said he had undertaken the report and he was there when the noise assessment was undertaken but he does not know how many dogs were on site, is that correct? Mr Cole responded that he was not present and has reviewed the report submitted by the applicant. He stated that, in his review, the things that Councillor Gerstner raised are all things he would routinely assess, in minute detail and it was all in accordance with the relevant guidance and does include all the things he would like to see.

·       Councillor Benney referred to a site visit with an officer some time ago, they stood in a field and the officer mentioned the ecology report, which he stated depends when the ecology report was undertaken as if was when the grass was long there would be more ecology and if was undertaken on short grass there would not be anything and would totally change the outcome of how that report reads. He expressed the view that the report for this proposal is incomplete, the verification of the figures do not stack up as without where these figures came from, it could have been that the owner of the kennels knew they were coming to do the assessment and left one dog in or he could have had 36 dogs in the kennels, which makes a massive difference to the report and, therefore, without the data stating how many dogs were there changes the value of the report and completeness of the report. Councillor Benney expressed the opinion that committee is relying on experts to provide information and as a Fenland Councillor he sees consultants and expert reports and they always back up what they want to back up, sometimes there are good reports that are very balanced and fair but sometimes they are very one sided and data can be skewed, though he is not saying it is here, to back up an argument. He feels the data is not verified, there are not the figures to verify the report and feels the report is worthless and expressed the view that you cannot put another 100 dogs into a kennels and keep the noise down, it does not work.

·       Councillor Gerstner referred to the comments of Environmental Health in 5.4 of the report where it says “I would also point out the application provides no details on how the substantial increase in commercial waste arising from this development will be dealt with”. Nick Harding made the point that Condition 10 proposes details of a waste disposal scheme to be submitted for approval. Annabel Tighe feels the point that Councillor Gerstner is raising was in relation to the original objection but through the application process the applicant provides additional information that can be reviewed so part of the process here was the Environmental Health Officer originally objected to the application on the basis of a lack of information including that there was no detail of how commercial waste would be dealt with, partly because they were aware that there was some concerns that had been raised and were being investigated, however, further information was submitted including mitigation for increased noise levels and that is where the Environmental Health Officer responded with removal of the objection and a suggestion of a set of conditions.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that this does not answer the question of how the substantial increase in waste is going to be dealt with. Annabel Tighe responded that there is a suggested condition that would be applied to any planning approval, setting aside that there are matters being investigated by Environmental Health and the Environment Agency at this time.

·       Councillor Marks expressed that view that there are 2 blocks of 50 which is a 100 dogs and he understands that they are not going to breed from the premises so asked if the third block was still going to be used as kennels as well? Nick Harding responded that his understanding is that the existing facility is no longer going to be used. Councillor Marks made the point that if his maths is correct 2 dogs are going to go into 1 kennel so does that mean they will try to breed from the facility as well? Nick Harding responded that he cannot say whether breeding is going to take place or not but in terms of the conditions on the application there is no condition that says breeding cannot take place. Councillor Marks stated that having heard from Mr Cole regarding breeding, also extra noise and unsettling that needs to be taken into consideration.

·       Nick Harding stated that Councillor Benney expressed some concerns over whether or not the Noise Impact Assessment that assessed the existing noise is a true reflection of the current situation of the assumption there is 26 dogs on the site at the time of that noise assessment and he asked Mr Cole whether he would be able to say something about how the predicted noise level has been extrapolated from the noise readings that were taken and whether or not the existing noise readings were extrapolated on the basis of X decibels showing on the reading. Mr Cole stated that as he has been listening he has tried to find reference to the number of dogs at the time the readings were taken and the only reference in the Noise Impact Assessment was noise dictated by numerous dogs barking so there is reference to their being numerous dogs but it is right that it is not known exactly how many but he would think if the consultant was asked he would be able to provide those figures. He advised that modelling is undertaken generally using software but he does not know the details of how they ran the model but he would say that was undertaken to the correct ISO standard and because it has been undertaken by competent acoustic professionals he is satisfied that it has been undertaken properly. He stated that the inputs, although it is not known how many dogs, he is satisfied that they are representative and fit for purpose.

·       Councillor Gerstner asked in the assessment report the software used should have built in a certainty factor for the final figure? Mr Cole responded that it is standard for a competent acoustic consultant to consider uncertainty when the impact assessment is created. Councillor Gerstner asked if those standard figures are the same standard figures for all noise or can they be tailored? Mr Cole stated that uncertainty can come from a whole range of different things and he is not quite sure what the question is trying to get at but, in his view, any competent acoustic consultant would ordinarily as a matter of course consider uncertainty when they undertake a noise impact assessment and for some noise impact assessments it is imperative that those uncertainties are quoted in the subsequent reports and he is not aware of there being any assessment of uncertainties being included in this particular assessment but he is not concerned about the absence of this information in the report.

·       Councillor Benney stated that committee is going through technical issues here, which is not being answered to his satisfaction and he is not happy with the report as it is not an evidence report and feels the committee should move on.

 

Members made comments, asked questions and received responses as follows:

·       Councillor Mrs French reiterated the comments of Councillor Benney, this has been considered for over 1.5 hours and the committee is not getting the answers. She feels it is an incomplete application, they have listened to the residents and to experienced councillors from Wisbech and she cannot believe this application has been recommended for approval. Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that human rights of residents are being breached, taking away the enjoyment and peace of their homes and it is making them ill so she cannot support the application.

·       Councillor Benney expressed the view that this is an incomplete report, which is the basis of the officer’s recommendation as they would have worked on the information provided to them so he is not criticising them but he does not have confidence in the assessment report and the numbers. He stated that you cannot put another 100 dogs into a kennels and reduce the noise unless you are really going to soundproof the facility, he feels the proposal will have a big detrimental effect on the people that live there and he cannot support the application in its present form. Councillor Benney made the point that this is another specialist’s report, it does not tell members how many dogs were there and the report is flawed.

·       Councillor Marks supports what both Councillors Benney and Mrs French have said and he thinks it speaks volumes that the applicant themselves are not present today to answer any questions and the committee seems to be going round and round in terms of noise as it is not known the circumstances about the number of dogs. He feels that Fenland and Planning Officers have done their best with the reports presented to committee but unfortunately the reports do not stack up regarding numbers, noise and other environmental issues and he is unable to support the proposal.

·       Councillor Imafidon expressed the view that the issue for him with this application is the impact on the residents’ lives and the noise from the dogs. He does not know how a kennel can be sound proofed, even if mechanical ventilation is installed in the kennels the longer dogs are left in a confined space when they are free they make more noise. Councillor Imafidon expressed the opinion that if barking is occurring now with a smaller number of dogs, by the time it gets to 120 the problem is going to be bigger, which is common sense as you cannot have reduced noise with an increased number of dogs. He stated that he would not be supporting the application.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he fully concurs with all the other councillors, it is a very immotive subject but it is the amenity to the residents close by that is going to be affected and that amenity is not just noise, it is potential smell and the dog waste and he cannot support it.

·       Councillor Hicks expressed the view that the decibel study is incomplete and unless he is wrong he thinks the decibel study was undertaken on predictions of what there is going to be and there is not study of what the decibel levels are now and the difference between the dogs being inside or outside and when the wind blows how the decibels will be impacted. He stated that he will not be supporting the application.

·       Nick Harding confirmed that noise readings were taken and presented in the report to show what the existing situation is but the question mark is that it is not known how many dogs were on site at the time of those noise readings being taken.

·       Stephen Turnbull, Legal Officer, stated that he is duty bound to point out that should the application be refused and then appealed the main issue will be the noise assessment and a noise report has been submitted with the application which has been assessed by an expert on behalf of the Council who has advised committee that the report has been properly undertaken so there is a risk of costs being awarded against the Council should it go to appeal.

 

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed that the application be REFUSED against officer’s recommendation.

 

In coming to the reasons for going against the officer’s recommendation, the following points were made:

·       Nick Harding stated that reference has been made to certain extracts from LP2 and LP16 and he would like to understand the impacts on amenity, is that purely in relation to noise. Councillor Benney responded no as there is the impact of trade waste and burning of rubbish as this is a commercial enterprise and it cannot be expected for residents to have commercial activity generating an amount of noise, waste and pollution that is having a major impact on the people’s lives that live there. Nick Harding stated that the burning of waste is in relation to the existing operation of the premises and the issue can be satisfactorily resolved through a condition which requires the means of dealing with the waste to be in accordance with a management plan to be submitted to and approved by the Council and implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

·       Councillor Connor indicated the LP d and e are definitely reasons.

·       Nick Harding stated that there is a need to drill down into what is the concern over noise so during the debate the issue raised by Councillor Benney was that in terms of the noise assessment it is not known how many dogs were on site when the assessment was undertaken and, therefore, there is not confidence that the predicted noise output from the proposal is accurate or not so asked if that is what committee’s concern is. Councillor Benney responded in the affirmative as it is not an evidence based report in his opinion as the evidence is not there to substantiate the answers being put forward for the basis of the recommendation to approve the application.

·       Nick Harding flagged to members that if the Council gets a revised version of the application submitted and that contains an updated noise assessment which says that on the day the noise readings were taken the figure was exactly the same as presented today and on that day there were 26 dogs and the model output is again the same as today there would be the same recommendation from Environmental Health that they are satisfied with the noise impact. He asked in that scenario would committee be happy to approve the application if the same evidence was presented or would committee still be concerned regarding the amount of noise generated during the daytime, which is predicted to increase but only by 3 dB difference which is not audible?

·       Councillor Marks made the point that it is 24 hours a day noise and it is impacting upon residents’ quality of life. Councillor Connor added that he would not be happy if this was brought back with the same information.

·       Nick Harding asked for clarification that committee want to stick to the noise issue and the report might be flawed because it is not known how many dogs were on site when the noise readings were taken? Councillor Benney responded that this is the core of the concern but you cannot put another 100 dogs and reduce the noise and at the moment there are noise issues which are not the concern of this committee, they are Environmental Health concerns, and he would suspect this might be followed up after the meeting. He feels the report is incomplete as it has not provided any evidence for the basis of the figures but also it is the impact that this is already having on residents and you cannot place another 100 dogs here that will not produce more noise or waste, therefore, this needs to be dealt with and there are concerns for the residents and the enjoyment of their home.

·       Nick Harding summarised that the application is not acceptable under LP2 and LP16 on the grounds of impact on residential amenity and two sub reasons, not being satisfied that existing noise readings are a true reflection of when the existing kennels was fully occupied at 26 dogs and that it is considered unlikely that 150 dogs could be accommodated on the site without further detriment to residents’ amenity.

·       Councillor Marks stated that it cannot be stated 26 dogs as it is not known how many were there. Nick Harding clarified that he said that committee was not satisfied that the noise readings are truly reflective of when 26 dogs are on site as it is not known how many dogs were on site.

·       Councillor Gerstner stated that he is not questioning the qualifications for the noise report as he has not seen it. He expressed the view that a noise assessment can be subjective and it is known, in some countries, to put people in cells with barking dog noise to break people down, although this is not the case here it is a known fact. Councillor Gerstner stated that noise travels in different directions, at different frequencies and different times, it is the amenity of the local people that are living there as barking dogs are not only extremely annoying but it is affecting their whole lives.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to human rights and the fundamental right to enjoy your home under Article 8. She stated that if another planning application comes in next month, she would not change her mind, if it is refused let the applicants appeal and the experts deal with it. Councillor Mrs French made the point that it is not affecting just one person but many and they are suffering health wise, it should be a basic right to have a safe and comfortable home and if this application is approved this fundamental right is being taken away and the facility is already causing deep concern and stress.

·       Councillor Benney stated that he notes the Legal Officer’s advice about being open to challenge but as a committee costs are a consideration and not a material planning reason. He feels that the committee has to do the right thing and if there are costs, the committee has made the decision with its hand on its heart doing the right thing for the residents of Fenland.

 

Members do not support the recommendation of approval of planning permission as they feel the proposal is contrary to Policies LP2 and LP16 which seek to ensure that new developments do not impact on and provide for high levels of amenity as the submitted noise assessment does not identify the number of dogs on site at the time of the noise readings being taken so there is no confidence that the stated existing noise levels are truly representative, there is also a lack of confidence that the predicted noise levels (extrapolated from the existing noise levels) will be representative of future noise levels and it is considered unlikely that an increase in the capacity of the operation of 120 dogs, notwithstanding the design of the new buildings and management, would not result in a detriment to residential amenity given the proximity of residential properties.

 

(All members present declared, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that they had been lobbied on this application)