Agenda item

(Councillor Geoff Mayes declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that he had received representations from both the applicant and objectors. As his interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest he determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

(Councillor Mollie Lock declared a personal interest in Agenda item 4(2) by virtue of the fact that as a dog owner in the local area she might make use of this proposed facility at a future date. As her interest was personal and not prejudicial or a disclosable pecuniary interest she determined to take part in the debate and vote on the matter).

The Committee considered a report (Agenda Item 4(2)) concerning Planning Application 13/01832/FUL in respect of a change of use from retail A1 shop/office to mixed use of retail and sui generis (dog grooming).

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, Mr John Morden, Parish Council representative, and Mr Martin Winter, agent, addressed the Committee on this application.

Mr Morden in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    The Parish Council’s preference would have been to consider this site in its entirety which would have included the car maintenance facility as well as the proposal for dog grooming. This would have provided the Committee with an opportunity to consider the total impact this site could have on this area of King Street. However, this application was not inclusive of the rear of this site (car maintenance) and this would be the subject of a later application. In terms of this proposal, the Parish Council had no planning grounds for objection.

·                    Car parking was not an issue if customers were only staying to drop off and collect their dogs.

·                    The level of noise would be minimal as dogs were proposed to be kept inside and Mr Morden felt that, if approved, a condition of approval should be for the installation of air conditioning within the premises to enable windows and doors to be kept shut, thereby minimising noise.

·                    There had been a shop in this location for many years and the Parish Council was supportive of local businesses. People living within the immediate vicinity of 37 King Street would already be aware of this being a retail unit which, if approved was granted, would continue.

·                    In response to a question from Councillor Mayes, Mr Morden confirmed that the Parish Council did object to a separate application in relation to the car maintenance aspect of the site.

Mr Winter in addressing the Committee raised the following points:

·                    He reiterated that a shop had existed in this location for many years, prior to the erection of some neighbouring properties.

·                    Mention had been made by objectors of this application being for two businesses. This was not the case, with the proposal only being for a dog grooming business. It was however hoped that in future it would also be possible to extend this to allow for the purchase of pet supplies.

·                    There was much support for this application locally and it was expected that it would be well used.

·                    Use of the dog grooming business would be on an appointment only basis and customer parking would only be short term for drop off and collection of dogs. Car parking signage had already been agreed by Highways. Each dwelling in King Street had parking space within its curtilage and there was not an issue of cars parking on the street/the kerbside.

·                    There was not an issue with noise from dogs barking in the current location of the dog grooming business near Burghfield. In addition, doors and windows would be kept shut both to prevent noise and for the safety of the dogs.

·                    Waste, be that hair/fur or from dog fouling, would be regularly removed by the applicant and waste water from washing dogs would go into the mains sewer. If a dog was to foul on the pavement to or from the groomers then it would be the responsibility of the dog owner to clear this up.

·                    If the dogs needed to be exercised then Mortimer’s recreation area was easily accessible.

·                    A supporting letter had been received from the Federation of Small Businesses and they felt that the dog grooming business would be of benefit to the village.

·                    Approval of the application would enable the retail unit to be brought back into use.

·                    Mr Winter requested that permission be granted in line with Officers’ recommendation.

In response to questions from Members, Mr Winter confirmed that:

·                    There would be two full time members of staff, with the possibility of one part time member of staff.

·                    It would be possible for customers to utilise the pet supplies shop area without using the dog grooming facility.

·                    The two air conditioning units in use at the current site would be transferred to the application site to ensure appropriate ventilation. This would also enable doors/windows to be kept shut, thereby keeping noise to a minimum.

·                    The precise location of the existing business was in Wokefield.

·                    Dog toilet bins were already in existence at the recreation area.

Councillor Lock added that there were several dog toilet bins located at strategic points around the village which were the responsibility of the Parish Council.

Councillor Lock, speaking as Ward Member, raised the following points:

·                    Approval of this application would bring this retail unit back into use and a dog grooming business would be a useful addition to the village. It would also offer local people a place to purchase dog food etc. Mortimer’s supermarket was limited in its range of these supplies and it was currently necessary to travel to Burghfield to purchase such items.

·                    She felt that it was likely that many local people would walk to and from the dog groomers and have no need for car parking.

·                    Councillor Lock’s personal experience of such facilities elsewhere was positive and dogs were generally kept quiet.

Councillor Mayes, also Ward Member, had no further comments to add. Councillor Lock then proposed acceptance of Officers’ recommendation to grant planning permission, this was seconded by Councillor Graham Pask.

Before proceeding to the vote, Councillor Alan Macro queried whether having one of the three parking spaces allocated to staff was sufficient when there were to be two full time members of staff and potentially one part time member of staff. Gareth Dowding advised that he was already aware of the full time members of staff and they were intending to car share. He was unaware that there was potential for a part time member of staff, but was unconcerned and there was some likelihood that this person could walk or cycle to work.

Councillor Macro then queried whether Environmental Health Officers were aware that there was a flat located upstairs in 37 King Street. David Pearson explained that Environmental Health Officers would have had the same information to make their assessment as was available to Planning Officers and Committee Members. He added that Environmental Health Officers had assessed levels of noise at the dog groomers’ current location and had raised no concerns. Should levels of noise become a concern then Environmental Health could implement statutory noise nuisance powers.

RESOLVED that the Head of Planning and Countryside be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

Conditions

Informatives: